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; manufacturer can challenge analyst report without copy supplied. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of the complaint No. 01/14.12.2024, Filing No.1903/2024, dated 14.12.2024, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, titled State of H.P. Vs. M/s Jackson Laboratory Private Limited and others, and consequential proceedings arising out of the same. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Drugs Inspector (complainant) filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court under Section 18(c), 18(A), 18(a)(i), 17(B)(d) punishable under SectionS 27(b)(ii), 28, 27(c) and 27(d) read with Section 36AC of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules made thereunder. It was asserted that the Drug Inspector, ASI Liyakat Ali, HHC Nardev Singh, HHC Kripal Singh, LC Sunita and independent witness Hans Raj visited the medical store of Karan Singh, situated at Raja-ka-Baag, Nurpur. They did not find any intoxicating drug in the shop. Thereafter, the team visited the house of Karan Singh and searched his house. 50 plastic packets, each containing 100 capsules of Provon Spas and Rs. 1,83,000/- were recovered. Each capsule contained Paracetamol 400 mg, Diclofenac Sodium 50 mg and Dicyclomine Hydrochloride 10 mg as per the label affixed on its pouch. Karan Singh was asked to produce the licence for possessing the capsules, but he could not produce any licence, even though he claimed that he had a wholesale drug licence. This is violative of Rule 62 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Drugs Inspector seized the capsules and the currency notes. Out of 5000 capsules, he retained 400 capsules as a sample on Form-17 and Form-17A. He put the rest of the capsules in a box. He sealed the boxes and the samples. The money was released to Karan as per the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur. The custody was obtained from the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, HP. The samples were sent to the Government Analyst, Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh, for detecting Tramadol Hydrochloride. The Government Analyst issued a report mentioning that the sample was found positive for Tramadol Hydrochloride, and Diclofenac Sodium was found to be nil. Hence, the drug fell within the definition of a spurious drug. A notice was issued to Karan Singh directing him to produce the purchase bill. Karan Singh sent a reply mentioning that he had purchased the drugs from Varun Medicos. Notice was issued to Rajinder Kaur, Proprietor of Varun Medicos, who disclosed in the reply that the drugs were supplied by M/s Caremax Formulation. A notice was issued to Caremax Formulation, which denied any sale to Varun Medicos. A fresh notice was issued to submit the purchase bill, and M/s Caremax Formulation again denied the sale. It was found that Sudhir Kumar was the proprietor of the Firm. Mrs Suman Samra was a competent person. Notices were issued to them, and they sent a reply denying any sale. Notice was issued to M/s Jackson Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., mentioned as the manufacturer of the drugs. M/s Jackson Laboratory Pvt. Ltd. denied that it had manufactured any such drug. A team was sent to the premises of M/s Jackson Laboratory P