Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
Section 18 in the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
the Drugs (Control) Act, 1950

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
Karnataka High Court
M/S Bhc Lab Povt (Ltd.) And Anr vs The Asst. Drugs Controller on 27 June, 2013
Author: Ravi Malimath
                        - 1-



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
            CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

           ON THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2013

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15367 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

1. M/S. BHC LAB (PVT.) LTD.,
   91/2, DIC
   BADDI, DIST: SOLAN-174101
   (HIMACHAL PRADESH)

2. MR.KARAN BALI S/O. SUSHIL BALI
   MANAGING DIRECTOR
   M/S.BHC LAB (PVT.) LTD.,
   91/2, DIC
   BADDI, DIST: SOLAN-174101
   (HIMACHAL PRADESH)
                                    ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA KULKARNI AND
SRI. SHIVASHARANA REDDY, ADVOVATES)

AND:

THE STATE THROUGH
THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CNTROLLER
RAICHUR CIRCLE
NO.1-10-77/1F, OPP:DISTRICT
STADIUM LINGASUGUR ROAD
RAICHUR
                                    ... RESPONDENT
                           - 2-



(BY SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADDL.SPP)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) &
JMFC RAICHUR IN C.C.NO.16/2009 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 18(a) (i) AND 27(d) OF DRUGS AND
COSMETICS ACT IN ISSUING PROCESS AGAINST
PETITIONERS BY ORDER DATED 30.01.2009 AND ENTIRE
ITS PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

The complainant namely the Assistant Drugs Controller, Raichur Circle has stated that on 20.01.2007 purchased Rabeprazole Sodium Tablets at Raichur. The drugs were sent for analysis. On 29.10.2007, the Government analyst Bangalore furnished a report to the effect that the said drugs were not of standard quality. A notice was issued under Section 18(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to M/s.Med Pharma to disclose that source of acquisition of the said drugs etc. On 28.01.2008 the complainant also seized 36x10 tablets of

- 3-

the above said batch of drugs from M/s.Shree Sadguru Medicals and General Stores, Manvi. They were all tested. They were found not of standard quality. The complaint was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. The case was registered and process was issued against the petitioners. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings and issuing of process.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there are various infirmities in the complaint itself. The drugs in question are of standard quality. He further contends that the testing of the drugs is also inappropriate.

4. On the other hand, the learned Addl.SPP contends that there are allegations against the

- 4-

petitioners of manufacturing sub standard drugs. The issuance of process and initiation of proceedings is just and proper. There is no error committed by the Trial Court which calls for interference.

5. On perusal of the complaint it would show that the drugs seized by the complainant were sent for examination. They were returned with the finding that they are not of standard quality etc. In terms of the investigation, the petitioners are liable for the said offences. The contention of the petitioners are matters for trial as to whether the report of the laboratory or the finding recorded was not just and proper etc. The learned Magistrate, having noticed that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners has rightly taken cognizance and ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioners, which is proper and in accordance with law. I find no good ground to interfere with the same. The innocence or otherwise of the petitioners will have be

- 5-

determined at the trial and quashing of the entire proceedings at this stage would be premature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has laid down the manner in which a petition seeking quashing of proceedings has to be considered. None of the condition exist herein. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srt