Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
Shri Ramprakash Gulati S/o Shri A.N. Gulati – Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPLN) NO.3684 OF 2009
Decided on : 01-09-2017
Abuse of Process of Law - Criminal Complaint - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 18(a)(i), Section 27(d)
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought to quash a criminal complaint filed against them under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging that the complaint was an abuse of process of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint lacked specific averments regarding the role of the applicants and that being directors of the accused company was not sufficient to establish their guilt under the Act. The court also noted that the case was similar to a reported case where the court had ruled in favor of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complaint against the applicants was an abuse of process of law and whether their role as directors was enough to establish their guilt under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint against the applicants could not stand scrutiny as it lacked specific averments regarding their involvement and that being directors alone was not sufficient to establish their guilt under the Act. The court also relied on a similar reported case where the accused were ruled in favor of.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, quashed the complaint against the applicants, and directed the continuation of the case against the other accused.
The proceedings are in the nature of application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking following reliefs.
(1) Quash and set aside the order dated 5/8/1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in Criminal Case No.103/1995 and so also set aside the Criminal Complaint Case No.103/1995 against applicants pending on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate.
(2) Grant stay to the further proceedings as against applicants in the Criminal Case No.103/1995 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati.
(3) …...................
(4)..........................
2. I heard Shri S.V.Sirpurkar, learned advocate for applicant nos. 1 to 3. He has submitted that he has instructions not to press application for and on behalf of applicant no.4. I also heard Shri V.P.Gangane, learned A.P.P. for Staten-on-applicant.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the complaint as filed against the present applicants is nothing but an abuse of process of law, therefore this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, should exercise its powers for quashing the complaint filed on behalf of the Drugs Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Maharashtra State Amravati qua applicants. He relied on a reported case decided by this Court in the matter of Shri Ramprakash Gulati and another vs. State at the instance of S.B.Ghotkar, 2010 ALL MR(Cri)493 to buttress his submission for quashment of complaint since it lacks in respect of the pleadings on material aspect. He also submits that in fact the present applicants were the applicants in the reported case (cited supra), however the said case was filed at Yavatmal while the present case is filed at Amravati.
4. Shri Wajir Mohammad, was appointed as an Inspector, under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herein after called as ' the Act' for the sake of brevity). Section 32 of the Act states that, no prosecution shall be launched except by the Inspector or by the Gazetted Officers of the Central or the State Governments authroised in writing in this behalf by the Central of State Governments by general or specific orders made in this behalf by the Governments. According to Shri Wazir Mohammad he was authorised to initiate the proceedings and consequently he filed a complaint. The complaint which was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No.103/1995. As per the complaint, the present applicants alongwith other accused were charged under Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and rules made therein.
5. According to the complainant, the complainant received report of the chloramphenicol eye ointment N.F.I.1% W/W( herein after referred as 'the said eye ointment' for the sake of brevity) which was declared to be not of standard quality from Shri A.G.Saoji and R.B.Joshi, the then Drug Inspectors, Amravati on 27/5/1994.
6. The complaint was filed against six accused persons. As per the complainant, the averments made in the complaint accused nos. 1 to 3 are the partners of the accused no.4 i.e. M/s Jyoti Capsules, situated at 123/37, Suregh Baugh, Kanpur 208012. The present applicants are accused nos. 1 to 3 in the said criminal complaint.
7. As per the complaint, M/s Jyoti Capsule (accused no.4) holds a manufacturing licence in Form 28 bearing No.6/SC/P of 1989 to manufacture the said eye ointment and other drugs.
8. Accused no.5 Ramesh Chandra Malik and accused no.6 Sarita Bhatnagar are the manufacturing chemist and analytical chemist respectively of accused no.4 M/s Jyoti Capsule. As per the averments, accused no.6 analysed the drugs for accused no.4.
9. According to complainant, Shri R.B.Joshi, the then Food Inspector on 31/5/1993 visited Isolation Hospital, Badnera Road, Amravati and drawn sample of the said ointment, batch No.JC23195 having manufactured dated 21/1/1993 which was to expire on 29/7/1994, manufactur
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
