A stockist cannot be held liable for drug quality violations if not impleaded in the prosecution, highlighting the necessity of prosecuting the manufacturer under the relevant legal framework.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘ BNSS ’), prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of complaint No. HFW- HMR(PROS) DRUGS/10-09, registered as Complaint No. 58-1 of 2010 titled as State of Himachal Pradesh (through Drugs Inspector H.Q. Hamirpur) v. Anil Chand and others as well as consequent proceedings pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, Hamirpur.

2. For having bird’s eye view of the matter, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand are that on 08.01.2009 Drug Inspector, Headquarters, Hamirpur alongwith Shri Jagdish Chand, Peon, visited the premises of M/s Shri Shri Medical Store, Opposite Bus Stand Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. Drug Inspector concerned after having noticed that Mr. Anil Chand was conducting business of stocking and exhibiting for sale of allopathic drugs over the counter via his retail drugs licence no. HMR/2006/389 and HMR/2006/390 valid upto 29.3.2011, picked up three samples of drug namely Chlorpheniramine Maleate Tablets (C.P. Sys-4) B. No. LGT- 8106, expiry date 08/2011, manufactured by M/s Legen Healthcare, Plot No.20, Sector 05, Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh for chemical analysis and as per procedure, sent the same for chemical examination to C.T.L. Kandaghat.

3. However, vide report dated 31.10.2009 sample of aforesaid Chlorpheniramine Maleate was found “not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules there under” for the reason that “the sample of Chlorpheniramine Maleate tablets contained less content of Chlorpheniramine Maleate i.e. 37.25 % against the prescribed limit i.e. 95% to 105% as per I.P.

4. After receipt of aforesaid ‘adverse’ analysis report, Drug Inspector concerned, vide letter dated 09.11.2009, sent a communication to Anil Chand, Pharmacist, In Charge M/s Shri Shri Medical Store to disclose the information as required under Section 18 - A of the Act, who in turn, vide his reply, disclosed that the said drug was purchased by him from M/s Aar Kay Surgicals, Tibhra Road, Sujanpur, Village and Post Office Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, vide invoice No. AKV=-908 dated 23.12.2008. Drug Inspector concerned, issued letter dated 02.12.2009 to M/s Aar Kay Surgicals, Sujanpur alongwith enclosing therewith copy of adverse analysis report and purchase invoice, asking it to disclose the information as required under Section 18 -A of the Act, who in turn vide letter dated 09.12.2009, disclosed that the drug in question was purchased by it from M/s Generica Indi