Back
RANJAN GOGOI, NAVIN SINHA
Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu (With Interim Relief And Office Report) – Respondent
What are the rights of an accused regarding the re-analysis of a drug sample? What are the consequences of the prosecution's failure to provide a sample to the manufacturer for analysis? What are the consequences of delay in taking cognizance of a complaint on the prosecution of an accused?
Key Points: - The appeal was against the High Court's order refusing to interdict criminal proceedings against the appellant-company and its directors [1000597540002]. - A sample of Cherry Lab Cough Syrup was taken on September 5, 2011, and a report dated January 27, 2012, indicated it did not conform to standard quality [1000597540004]. - The appellant requested re-analysis by the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, on September 13, 2012, which was refused as belated, citing Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [1000597540005]. - The prosecution failed to send a portion of the sample to the appellant-manufacturer as required by Section 23(4)(iii) of the Act [1000597540006]. - The cognizance of the alleged offences was taken on March 4, 2015, though the complaint was filed on November 28, 2012, and the drug had lost its shelf life by November 2012 [1000597540007]. - The valuable right of the appellant to have the sample analyzed in the Central Laboratory was denied due to defaults by the prosecution and the court [1000597540008]. - The delay in sending the sample and taking cognizance was not attributable to the appellants [1000597540008]. - The court held that continuing the prosecution would be a "lame prosecution" due to the violation of the accused's rights [1000597540008]. - The criminal trial against the accused appellants was interdicted, and the High Court's order was set aside [1000597540009]. - The criminal case pending before the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, was quashed [1000597540009].
ORDER :
Leave granted
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madras dated 6th July, 2016 by which the criminal proceeding against the appellant-company and its directors (appellant nos.1 to 5) and appellant no.6 - Vice President (Operations), person responsible for conduct of business has been refused to be interdicted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. The facts lie in a short compass and have to be noticed as the same would be determinative of the legal issues that having been raised in the present appeal.
5. A sample of Cherry Lab Cough Syrup was taken on 5th September, 2011 from the medical shop of one S. Serumathi, a retailer. One part of the said sample was sent for analysis by the Government Analyst who submitted a report dated 27th January, 2012 to the effect that the sample did not conform to the standard quality.
6. A show cause notice was sent to the appellant no.1-Company on 22nd March, 2012 along with a copy of the report of the Government Analyst. The appellant sent its reply on 14th May, 2012. In the said reply, the appella
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
