Technicalities are very important in matters under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the prosecution's failure to comply with these technicalities can result in the discharge of the accused.

JUDGMENT -Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 14th August, 1992 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, VI Court, Mazgaon, Bombay allowing the application of discharge made by the respondent/original accused Pravin Premji Shah. The said accused was charged for offences under sections 18(c) read with Rule 65(3)(4), section 18(b) read with Rule 36, both punishable under section 27(d), and section 18-A punishable under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ("the Act")

2.Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :---

The complainant Mr. A.G. Udhoji who is a Drugs Inspector appointed under section 21 of the Act 1940 filed complaint against the accused for the above mentioned offences. Accused is a proprietor of M/s. Manish Medicals, Shop No. 14, Laxmidas Wadi, 258, Sane Guruji Road, Bombay-400011 and the accused holds licences in Form No. 20 No. C-11/148, and 21 No. C-11/149 both dated 31st October, 1983 for selling drugs by way of retail by availing services of qualified persons.

3.The complaint states that on 2nd June, 1988 the complainant Mr. A.G. Udhoji visited the premises of M/s. Manish Medical situated at the address given above along with Drugs Inspector P.D. Chaudhari, the Drugs Inspector Greater Bombay and inspected the premises and found out that 14 blisted packing strips of 10 tablets each of different embossing mark of Aldomet were found to be stocked for sale in one rack along with other saleable drugs. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused could not produce purchase bill for the said stock of drugs. Hence, the said stock of drugs was prohibited by the Drugs Inspector under Form 15 dated 2nd June, 1988 for a period of 20 days. Thereafter, on 21st June, 1988, the complainant Mr. Udhoji again visited the premises of M/s. Manish Medicals at the same place, and again prohibited the said stock of drugs by issuing fresh prohibitory order and prohibited it for 20 days. Similarly, on 8th July, 1988, the complainant again visited the premises of accused. The use of the said Aldomet Tablets was again prohibited for a further period of 20 days on 8th July, 1988 by issuing a fresh prohibitory order. Thereafter, on 23rd July, 1988 as per the instructions of Joint Commissioner, Greater Bombay, the complainant again visited the premises of M/s. Manish Medicals, along with Mr. V.D. Patil and Mr. H.D. Salunkhe, Drugs Inspector, Greater Bombay and two panchas. In the presence of these panchas and the Drugs Inspector, the stock of Aldomet Tablets was seized under the panchanama and Form 16. The licence of the accused was suspended for a period of three days with effect from 21st September, 1988 to 23rd September, 1988 by the Licensing Authority. The Joint Commissioner, Greater Bombay made oral enquiries with M/s. Merind Ltd. Bombay, and it was learnt that the said manufacturer has stopped manufacturing of Aldomet Tablet since 23rd August, 1986, and hence, it appeared that stock seized by the complainant on 23rd July, 1988 from the accused was unauthorisedly imported drug, as it did not bear manufacturers address, batch number etc. It was therefore, thus, charged in this case that on 2nd June, 1988, the accused stocked for sale Aldomet Tablets in his licensed premises without purchase bill and thus committed an offence under section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Rule 65(3)(4) punishable under section 27(d) of the Act. It is also charged that on 2nd June, 1988, the accused stocked for sale the said Aldomet Tablets which were unauthorisedly imported, and thus, committed offence under section 18(b) read with Rule 36 punishable under section 27 (d) of the Act. It was also charged that the accused on or about 2nd June, 1988 at Greater Bombay stocked for sale the said Aldomet Tablets in his licensed premises and did not disclose the source of purchase and procurement to the complainant though he was asked to disclose th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document