IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with statutory provisions is essential for the validity of prosecution actions; failure to adhere to such requirements can lead to acquittal.

ORDER :

V Srinivas, J.

Assailing the judgment dated 21.08.2007 in Crl.A.No.294 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned IX Additional Sessions Judge(FTC) at Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 by the judgment dated 21.07.2004 in C.C.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Guntur, for the charges under section 17-B(e) r/w.27(c), Sec.17-B(d) r/w.27(c), Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.27(d), Sec.18-A r/w.28, Sec.18-B r/w.28-A and Sec.24 r/w.28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act), the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

2. The revision case was admitted on 29.08.2007 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioners was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1716 of 2007.

3. The shorn of prosecution case is that:

i). On 08.01.1999, P.W.1 Drug Inspector inspected the Mallikarjuna Medical Corporation, Naaz Centre at Guntur, purchased twelve boxes, each containing five ampoules of one ml capacity of Methergin injection, labeled as manufactured by Korten Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited under manufacturing license No. KD 153, for Rs.627-36 p.s., obtained acknowledgment from P.W.2 on the back of Form No.17 and P.W.2 disclosed that he purchased the said drug from Sri Rajarajeswari Medical Agencies, Narasaraopeta to which P.W.4 is the proprietor.

ii). Then P.W.1 directed P.W.2 not to sell the said stock, later divided the same into four equal portions, each portion containing three boxes, sealed them with his seal and sent one of the samples to the Drug Control Laboratory, Hyderabad along with Form-18.

iii). On 25.03.1999, P.W.1 received analyst report stating that the said sample is not up to the standard quality for the reason that the sample does not contain the active ingredient “Methyl Ergo Metrine Maleate” and also does not comply the test for sterility as per Indian Pharmacopia, 1996.

iv). Basing on the said information, he addressed a letter to P.W.5 to disclose the source of supply of the drug and P.W.4 stated that he purchased the said drugs from accused No.1-M/s. Omkar Medicals, Vijayawada, represented by its partners accused Nos.2 and 3. Inturn, accused No.2 gave reply that he purchased the said drug from petitioner/accused No.4-M/s. Sri Ganesh Medical Agencies at Tirupati to which accused Nos.5 to 8 are partners.

v). Accused No.5 gave reply that they never sold the subject drug to accused No.1. P.W.1 visited the manufacturing premises of Korten Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited, Santhistal, Thane at Maharastra, produced the sample packet along with letter dated 28.03.2001 before P.W.5 and P.W.5 got compared the sample by P.W.6 Quality Assurance Manager of the said company with control drug in Methergin Injection ampoule batch No.70954. P.W.6 in his letter stated that the original control sample of Methergin injection ampoules were not available in their factory, they got it compared with the carton and the label and there is difference in colour of red bands on the carton, letter of word “Methergin”, sandox colour of four bands, ampoules and sandoz letters etc.

vi). Since, accused Nos.1 to 8 violated the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, P.W.1 obtained sanction orders from the Director of Drugs Control Administration to launch prosecution against them. Hence, the complaint.

4. The complaint was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.67 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise at Guntur, after full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 21.07.2004, found the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are not guilty of the charges under Section 17- B(e) r/w.27(c), Sec.17-B(d) r/w.27(c), Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.27(d), Sec.18-A r/w.28, Sec.18-B r/w.28-A and Sec.24 r/w.28 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act. However, found the accused Nos.4 and 5 guilty of the charges under Section 17-B(e) r/w.