SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Ambalal D. Bhatt, Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1969, D/- 7-3-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A.S.R. Chari, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. R.M. Vin, R.A. Patel and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. B. D. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. S.P. Nayar, Advocate and Miss Kamlesh Bansal, Advocate, for Respondent.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 134 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304-A - Drugs Act - Sections 27, 18 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 342 - Manufacturing A Solution Of Glucose - Rigorous Imprisonment - A few of relevant facts as alleged by prosecution are not really in dispute S - C - I Ltd prepares glucose in normal saline a solution containing dextrose distilled water and sodium chloride - It appears that sodium chloride contains certain quantities of lead nitrate but according to American Pharmacopoeia which is one of Pharmacopoeias recognised by Rules under Act according to which drugs can be manufactured lead nitrate of 5 parts in 1 million is permissible limit which works out to -000005 evidence shows that in order to prepare glucose in normal saline of standard quality 5 of dextrose and 9 of sodium chloride are require to be dissolved in distilled water which is absolutely sterile and free from germs and bacteria - Held, This evidence further indicates that where salt content is 89 and over but did not exceed permissible B-P limit lead nitrate has not been detected though we are not in a position to say that if it is within permissible limit according to U - S - P whether it has been ignored and shown as not present - But where salt content is less than minimum limit of 95 or far in excess of upper limit of 105 lead nitrate has been found - We have referred to evidence in detail only to show that by merely determining sodium chloride content to be 0 -8869 as disclosed in analysis test report of Prabhakaran though it is said to be with permissible limit it does not indicate without additional test that one bottle out of Batch which he analysed does not contain lead or nitrate salts or lead nitrate - Appeal allowed.
Judgement
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- The appellant (original accused No.2), a Chemist Incharge of the Injection Department of Sanitax Chemical Industries Ltd. Baroda (hereinafter referred to as S. C. I. Ltd., along with 5 others was charged under Section 304-A, I.P.C. for rashly and negligently manufacturing a solution of glucose in normal saline Batch No. 211105 which contained more than the permitted quantity of lead nitrate as a result of which 13 persons, to whom it was administered, died. At the relevant time the first accused K. K. Prabhakaran was the Chief Analyst of the Testing Laboratory, accused R. M. Patel the third accused was the words Superintendent. S. J. Mehta the fourth accused was Production Superintendent Manibhai B. Amin, proprietor of M/s. M. B. Amin and Company, Baroda, the fifth accused was the Managing Director, and H. M. Amin, the sixth accused, the son of the fifth accused was a Director and partner of S. C. I. Ltd. It was alleged that all these accused were responsible for the manufacture of the aforesaid solution contrary to the provisions of the Drug Control Act and Rules and for the sale of it. The trial Court convicted the appellant and K. K. Prabhakaran, the first accused and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment of 8 months and a fine of Rupees 100/-, in default to serve 15 days rigorous imprisonment. It acquitted the other accused. Against this conviction and sentence both the accused filed separate appeals before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Baroda who acquitted them of the offences with which they were charged. The State of Gujarat appealed against the acquittal of both these accused. The High Court convicted the appellant and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 8 months rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court but imposed no fine. The first accused was, however, acquitted. Against that Judgment this appeal is by certificate under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
2. A few of the relevant facts as alleged by the prosecution are not really in dispute. S. C. I. Ltd. prepares glucose in normal saline, a solution containing dextrose, distilled water and sodium chloride (popularly known as common salt). It appears that sodium chloride contains certain quantities of lead nitrate but according to the American Pharmacopoeia, which is one of the Pharmacopoeias recognised by the Rules under the Act according to which drugs can be manufactured, lead nitrate of 5 parts in 1 million is the permissible limit, which works out to .000005 . The evidence shows that in order to prepare glucose in normal saline of the standard quality 5 of dextrose and 9 of sodium chloride are require to be dissolved in distilled water which is absolutely sterile and free from germs and bacteria. The solution thus prepared is meant for being injected into or given by drip to patients. The Production Report dated 12-11-62. Exhibit 165, shows that 2.35 kg of sodium chloride and 13 kgs. of dextrose with bidistilled water was utilised for preparing the solution of glucose in normal saline which was filled in 450 bottles, each of which contained 540 c.c. of the solution. The report further mentions in the column Details of Manufacture and Progress Report, the following:-
"In about 70L boiled bidistilled water 4.0 kg. dextrose dissolved. Stirred well, volume made upto 80L. Similarly two more lots each of 80L. Solution prepared 20L prepared separately. Total 260L. Solution prepared".
In this way each batch of 80 litres was filled in 100 bottles and the 5th batch in 50 bottles. Out of these 450 bottles some were rejected. Out of the remaining 394 bottles, 8 bottles were taken for analysis on 13th November, 1962 and the remainder were packed for sale. The report in respect of the 8 bottles taken for analysis was received on 29-11-62 from the first accused. It will appear that contrary to the mandatory requirements prescribed in Rule 96 (v) of the Drug Rules made under the Drugs Act 1940, each of the lots
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.