- 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
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
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
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.