IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
Atul Kumar Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and another - Respondents
Cr. Revision No. 485 of 2024
Decided On : 25-04-2025
(A) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 17-B and 18(c) - Charges framed against accused for manufacturing spurious drugs without a valid license - The accused failed to provide evidence of subletting premises and claimed no right to challenge the analysis report - The court emphasized that prima facie evidence is sufficient for framing charges without examining the defense - The petitioner’s claims regarding the validity of the license and the right to a copy of the analysis report were dismissed. (Paras 2, 4, 10, 16, 17)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - At the stage of framing charges, the court must assess the prosecution's material to determine if a prima facie case exists without delving into the defense. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of manufacturing spurious drugs at M/s Himalayan Laboratories, with allegations of using forged licenses and failing to provide documentation when requested by the Drugs Inspector. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient grounds to proceed with the trial based on the prosecution's evidence, dismissing the petitioner's claims regarding the analysis report and the validity of his license. (Paras 19, 20)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner had a valid license and the right to challenge the analysis report. (Paras 4, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existence of prima facie evidence is sufficient for framing charges, and the accused's claims regarding the analysis report and license validity were not substantiated. (Paras 10, 16)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is directed against the order dated 8th July 2024 passed by learned Special Judge (II) Nahan (learned Trial Court), vide which the charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioner (accused before the learned Trial Court). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused asserting that he had received secret information that spurious and illegal drugs were being manufactured by M/s Soliance Pharma Products, Village Surajpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, H.P. The drugs officials of Haryana had seized a huge quantity of drugs from the Godown of M/s Lincoln Pharmaceutical Limited. An F.I.R. was lodged to this effect with SHO P.S. Saha (Haryana). The police sealed the premises of M/s Himalayan Laboratories, Village Surajpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib on 13.07.2021 and recorded an entry No. 56(A), dated 13.07.2011 in the daily diary. The Drugs Inspector sent a letter to the SDM, Paonta Sahib, to depute an Executive Magistrate. The Drug Inspector opened the sealed premises in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and searched it. A huge quantity of spurious, misbranded, loose drugs without labels and other mandatory information was recovered. Names of M/s N.L.P. Organics Pvt. Limited, M/s Soliance Pharma Products, and M. Sea Pharmaceuticals being the manufacturers were mentioned on some of the drugs. The premises were violating the provisions of Schedule M of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and Rules framed thereunder. The drugs, machinery and other materials were seized by the Drugs Inspector in 49 boxes and 7 poly bags. These were sealed. Panchnama was prepared. Atul Kumar Gupta, the present petitioner, visited the spot, and he was asked to produce the documents and explain the manufacturing of spurious and misbranded drugs. He failed to submit any reply and stated that he had sublet the premises to one Saurav Behl; however, he could not produce any proof of this fact. He was asked to sign the documents, but he refused to do so. M/s Himalayan Laboratories was not authorised to manufacture the drugs belonging to or bearing the name and address of the firm M/s NLP Organics Pvt. Ltd, M Sea Pharmaceuticals and M/S Soliance Pharma Products. 5 (Five) samples were drawn. A request was made to SHO P.S. Paonta Sahib to register the F.I.R. The Police registered the F.I.R. No. 220 of 2011 at Police Station Paonta. The police conducted the investigation. The custody orders were obtained from the Court. The drugs were sent to Government Analyst Kandghat for analysis. A report was issued. Four Samples were stated to be not of standard quality, and the samples were declared misbranded. The Drugs Control Officer Ambala-I, Gurcharan Singh and the Drugs Control Officer Ambala-II, Sunil Dhaiya, attended the office of the Drugs Inspector, Nahan. A letter was written to them with a request to provide the documents of their case. They submitted documents vide letter dated 21.07.2011, which showed that the drugs were manufactured by M/s Soliance Pharma Products, and were seized by the Drugs Controller, Ambala, from the premises of M/s Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Limited. M/s Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Limited wrote a letter to S.P. Solan, H.P., on 24.10.2011 that they had made complaints against M/s Soliance Pharma Products, regarding the supply of spurious and illegal drugs after forging the copies of licenses. The accused intentionally manufactured the illegal drugs and sold them to M/s Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Limited with forged documents. The reports were sent to M/s N.L.P. Organic as per Section 24; however, the registered letter was received with the remark that the addressee had left Bhiwadi. One copy was sent to M/S M. Sea Pharmaceutical, who sent a reply that they had neve
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.
Complaint for spurious drugs not quashable under CrPC 482 if allegations prima facie disclose offence; Magistrate takes cognizance of Chapter IV Drugs Act cases for committal to Sessions; manufacture....
The expiry of a drug sample before testing negates the prosecution's case, impacting the accused's right to challenge the evidence.
At the charge stage, evidence demonstrating a case's absurdity permits consideration of defense materials of impeccable quality, overriding merely prosecution's reports.
The right of a manufacturer to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Government Analyst is not violated if the sample has already been tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory.
The judgment establishes that the failure of the prosecution to adhere to statutory requirements, particularly regarding the right to contest the Government Analyst's report, can lead to the quashing....
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.