JUDGMENT- D.D. SINHA, J.:---Heard Shri Parchure, learned Counsel of the petitioners and Shri Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2.The present criminal writ petition is directed against the order dated 3-2-1998 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No. 1806 of 1995, whereby the Revisional Court dismissed the revision preferred by the complainant and confirmed the order dated 24-10-1994 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur below Ex. 4 in Complaint (Cr.) Case No. 21 of 1994.

3.It will be appropriate to consider few relevant facts which have given rise to the controversy in question. Petitioner No. 1 is the Public Limited Company engaged in manufacture and supply of drugs and medicines. It is a licensed manufacturer of medicines. The complainant is the Drug Inspector, who was serving at the relevant time in the office of the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Nagpur and is empowered to enforce the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules. Petitioner No. 1 is manufacturing Ampicillin and Cloxacillin capsules under the Brand name 'Zimlox'. The said medicine manufactured by petitioner No. 1 company is usually marketed through M/s. Universal Medikit Private Limited, Nagpur, who is the principal distributor appointed for the purpose.

4.On 26-5-1994, the Drugs Inspector, Chandrapur visited the factory of petitioner No. 1 and handed over the copy of the report and test of Analysis of the drug 'Zimlox' sent by the Government Analyst, Bombay, declaring the sample of said drug sent to him for analysis, "as not of Standard quality as the quantity of its principal ingredients in the sample was found to be less than the limit prescribed". A portion of the sample of the said drug was also delivered by the said Drug Inspector to the Technical Director of the Company i.e. present petitioner No. 11. After the receipt of the above referred report of the Government Analyst, petitioner No. 1 sent a letter to the Drug Inspector on 18-6-1994 informing him that the report of the Government Analyst declaring the sample of the above referred drug as not of standard quality was not acceptable to petitioner No. 1 and he intended to lead evidence in controversion of the said Government Analyst report. Petitioner No. 1 further requested to send a portion of the sample of the drug to the Central Drugs Laboratory for re-analysis and the petitioner was ready to bear the cost involved in respect of the same.

5.The Drug Inspector after the receipt of the above referred letter dated 18-6-1994 sent by petitioner No. 1 Company, handed over the case papers with the remaining portion of the sample to the office of the Joint Commissioner (Nagpur Division), Food Drugs Administration (M.S.), Nagpur. The said authority by its letter dated 13-7-1994 acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 18-6-1994 and informed petitioner No. 1 Company to approach the Court concerned for obtaining the necessary direction to send the sample of the drug for re-analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory at Calcutta. The petitioner received the said letter dated 13-7-1994 on 19-7-1994.

6.Petitioner No. 1 presented an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 28-7-1994 requesting to direct the respondent-complainant to deposit the portion of sample for sending it to Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta for re-analysis. The said application was registered as Criminal Application No. 12 of 1994. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur issued notice to the respondent-complainant for submission of sample of the drug in question in the Court for sending it for re-analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. The said notice was served on respondent-complainant in the first week of August 1994 and was made returnable by the Court on 30-9-1994. The drug in question was due to expiry in the month of August 1994. However, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document