IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Brijesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 2369 & 2368 of 2023
Decided On : 29-12-2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Brijesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. MP(M) Nos. 2369 & 2368 of 2023
Decided On : 29-12-2023
Bail - Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Section 18(a)(i), 17, 17B, 18(a)(vi), 22(3), 36D - The court allowed the bail petitions filed by the petitioners who were involved in printing labels and foils for pharmaceutical companies accused of manufacturing spurious drugs. The court held that the petitioners' involvement in printing did not amount to manufacturing spurious drugs as defined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court emphasized the strict construction of penal statutes and the need for prima facie evidence to support the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were seeking bail in a case involving the manufacturing of spurious drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Drug Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioners and others for their alleged involvement in the manufacturing of spurious drugs. The petitioners denied their involvement and sought bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' involvement in printing labels and foils for pharmaceutical companies did not amount to manufacturing spurious drugs as defined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court emphasized the need for prima facie evidence to support the charges and the strict construction of penal statutes.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' involvement in printing labels and foils constituted manufacturing spurious drugs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definitions of 'manufacture' and 'spurious drugs' under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to determine the scope of the petitioners' involvement. The court emphasized the need for prima facie evidence and the strict construction of penal statutes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail petitions and ordered the petitioners to be released on bail, emphasizing that their involvement in printing labels and foils did not amount to manufacturing spurious drugs as defined under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioners have filed the present petitions for seeking regular bail in complaint no. 1 of 2023 filed by the Drug Inspector, Baddi for the commission of offences punishable under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 17 and 17B, 18(a)(vi), 22(3) and Section 36D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the Drug Inspector received a secret information on 22.11.2022 that Mohit Bansal, who was running a business of medicines at Agra was involved in manufacturing of spurious drugs on his premises situated at Jyanti Chowk, Baddi. He would carry the spurious drugs in his vehicle. The search of the vehicle bearing registration no. UP-80—FC-7530 belonging to Mohit Bansal was conducted on 22.11.2022 at Baddi, Police Barrier. Zerodol TH4, Roseday 10 and Montair 10 tablets were recovered from his possession. He could not produce any license or authorization to carry the drugs required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The search of the godown of Mohit Bansal was conducted on the same day. Atul Gupta and Vijay Kaushal were arrested for manufacturing the spurious drugs. Names of Shivom and Naval were discovered during the investigation, who were involved in the compression of the medicines through Idreesh Mohammad. Naresh Kumar was also found to be involved in the manufacturing of spurious drugs. The drug Inspector filed the complaint against these persons. The investigation continued and as per the confessional statement of Idreesh Mohammad, the foil used for manufacturing of spurious drugs were stated to be supplied by M/s Adarsh Foils for printing the labels. They were arrested.
3. A supplementary complaint was filed, which is pending adjudication.
4. The petitioners filed separate bail petitions asserting that there is no legally admissible evidence to show their involvement. The confessional statement made by Mohammad Idreesh is inadmissible in law. The petitioners are in the business of printing the labels and the foils. They could not have been aware of the fact that M/s Trizal Formulations was manufacturing spurious drugs. The petitioners never remained associated with Mohammad Idreesh or any other employee of M/s Trizal Formulations for printing or labelling of foil. The petitioners were earning their livelihood by printing the labels for different pharmaceutical companies. They were falsely implicated. A supplementary complaint has been filed before the Court and the petitioners are not required for any purpose. They would abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petitions.
5. A status report was filed giving the details of the recovery of the spurious drugs and the involvement of various persons. It was asserted that Mohammad Idreesh disclosed that M/s Adarsh Foils, Shivalik Nagar, Baddi had printed the foils. Petitioners were present on the premises on 19.06.2023 and they disclosed that they had destroyed the cylinder used for printing and labelling of spurious drugs. Petitioner Virender submitted a copy of the payment received from Mohammad Idreesh and artwork of other spurious medicines. A diary containing the details of the payments to Adarsh Foils was recovered from the shop of Mohammad Idreesh. The mobile phones of the petitioners were seized and sent to the laboratory for analysis and recovery of deleted conversations, photographs and other details. The petitioners admitted during the interrogation that they had supplied the printed foils of the medicine Roseday to Mohammad Idreesh. They also disclosed that Rajni Bhargava Director of M/s Cyper Pharma purchased printed labels of medicine Bio-D3 plus product. They also disclosed that they had supplied the material/printed foil/label for manufacturing spurious drugs. Petitioner-Virender disclosed that he had destroyed all cylinders used for manufacturing/labelling of foils used in the manufacturing of spurious drugs when they ca
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak
Commr. of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co.
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the involvement in printing labels and foils for pharmaceutical companies does not necessarily constitute manufacturing spurious drugs as defi....
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
Conviction under drug regulation provisions requires proving non-compliance, highlighting the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's details for legal protection.
At the charge framing stage, the court assesses prima facie evidence without examining the defense, and the accused's claims regarding analysis reports and license validity were insufficient.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.