KRISHNA NAND SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. Kumari Rashmi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.O.C.R No.61 of 2013, T.R.No.879 of 2014 including order taking cognizance dtd. 15/7/2013 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

(3.) The complaint case has been lodged alleging therein, in nutshell, that On 2/3/2011 the then Inspector of Drugs inspected premises of M/s Bajpai Medicals, Deoghar and the Inspector issued Form-16 on Ciproplus B- WS, 100 mg manufactured by M/s Intercorp Biotech, New Delhi and as per the composition mentioned on the label ciprofloxacin hydrochloride-100 mg is present in 1 gm of the product, which implies that the product is a drug but no drug manufacturing license no. is mentioned on the label and the product is sold as 'nutritional supplement'. The said company was informed regarding the seizure and it was asked to produce the constitution details of the firm. The manufacturer requested for 15 days' time. After receipt of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court, the Drug Inspector sought approval for prosecution from the Director in Chief (Drugs) to prosecute the manufacturer company under Sec. 27(b) and (d) for violation of Sec. 18(a) and (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and in turn approval has been granted. The special leave petition preferred by the manufacturer before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed. Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride is a potent antibacterial agent which is categorized under schedule-H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The manufacturer by claiming ciprofloxacin hydrochloride as a nutritional supplement has tried to misguide and hamper the instigation process. The manufacturer distributed and sold the drug without obtaining the drug manufacturing license which violates Sec. 18(c) and is punishable under Sec. 27(b). Hence this case.