IMPORTANT POINT
When the Act prescribes a particular mode for achieving an end, the end achieved without undergoing the prescribed modes cannot be a valid achievement and more so when it concerns the life and liberty of a citizen.

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral)—Obtaining leave under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. 1973 to challenge the judgment and order dated 1.2.1982 passed by Sh. D.N. Kadian, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, appellant urges that the impugned judgment and order dated 1.2.1982 be set aside and that the respondent be convicted under Sections 27(a)(i) and 27(b) read with Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(ii) and 18(a)(iia) and Rule 65(18) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. Appellant is the Drugs Inspector, Delhi Administration. Respondent (accused) is Hukum Chand, sole proprietor of M/s Fair Deal Chemist.

3. Briefly noted, relevant facts are that on 5.2.1978, in the presence of the respondent the Drugs Inspector, Sh. V.B. Bajpai, PW1 collected samples of two drugs known as Analgin Tablets, Batch No.235 purported to be manufactured by M/s HKG Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. and Prednisolone Tablets, Batch No. CP.104 purported to be manufactured by M/s Cyper Pharma from the premises of M/s Fair Deal Chemist. Intimation in form 17 about the collection of the samples and one sealed portion of each sample was handed over to the respondent.

4. The said two drugs were stocked and exhibited for sale in the said premises. Besides the said two drugs, the firm was also found stocking and exhibiting for sale various drugs like Apidin tablets, Digene tablets etc which were marked as “C.G.H.S. Supply—Not for sale.”

5. After completing the formalities, one sealed portion of each sample i.e. Analgin tablets and Predinisolone tablets were sent to the Govt. Analysts, Delhi Administration, Central Indian Pharmacopiea Laboratory, Ghaziabad and Drugs Labortary, Baroda respectively for test and analysis. The memos in form 18 having the seal impression of the seal by which the samples were sealed were separately sent by registered post to the respective Govt. Analyst.

6. Both the Govt. Analysts in their reports opined that the drugs in question were sub-standard, misbranded and not of standard quality. The reports of the Govt. Analysts in respect of samples of Analgin tablets and Predinisolone tablets are Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/J respectively.

7. Accordingly, the complaint under Sections 27(a)(i) and 27(b) read with Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(ii) and 18(a)(iia) and Rule 65(18) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was filed against the respondent. Prosecution sought conviction of the respondent on following grounds:

(i) That the respondent was stocking and exhibiting for sale misbranded drugs. [Section 18(ii)].

(ii) That the respondent was stocking and exhibiting for sale adulterated drugs. [Section 18(iia)].

(iii) That the respondent was stocking and exhibiting for sale drugs which were not of standard quality [Section 18(i)].

(iv) That the respondent was stocking and exhibiting for sale drugs which were not meant for sale [Rule 65(18)].

8. In respect of grounds (ii) and (iii), the prosecution relied upon the afore-noted reports of the Govt. analysts. As per the prosecution, the said reports conclusively established that the drugs in question were adulterated and not of standard quality.

9. Per contra, stand of the respondent before the Trial Judge was that the said reports cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence against the respondent for the reason there has been a breach of provision of Rule 46 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the rules framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 are mandatory in nature.

10. Holding that there has been non-compliance of Rule 46 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules by the Govt. Analysts, learned Metropolitan Magistrate as acquitted respondent of the charges framed against him under Sections 18(i) and 18(iia) read with Section 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

11. Relevant part of the Rule 46 reads as under:

“46. Procedure on receipt of sample—On receipt of package from an Inspector containing a sample for test or analysis, the Governme