Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
JAVED IQBAL WANI, J.
K.K. Patel (Dr.) & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
CRMC No. 29 Of 2015
Decided On : 19-04-2022
INHERENT JURISDICTION - DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT - Sections 18(a)(i), 25(1), 25(3), 25(4), 27(d) - The court discussed the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A (now 482 Cr.P.C.) and the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, particularly Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d), which pertain to the filing of complaints regarding drug quality. The court emphasized the importance of Section 25(3), which allows for the right to re-examine a drug sample, and noted that the failure to comply with this provision rendered the complaint invalid. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation that the report of the Government Analyst is not conclusive if the accused intends to adduce evidence to the contrary within the stipulated time frame.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a criminal complaint filed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, alleging that the drug in question was of sub-standard quality. The complaint was based on a report from a Government Analyst, but the petitioners claimed they were denied the opportunity to re-examine the drug sample as per Section 25(3) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to provide the petitioners with the opportunity to exercise their right to re-examine the drug sample, which constituted a violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court noted that the complaint was filed after the expiry date of the drug and involved discrepancies in the batch numbers.
Issues: Whether the complaint filed against the petitioners was valid given the failure to comply with Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court could be invoked to quash the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to re-examine a drug sample under Section 25(3) is a safeguard for the accused, and the failure of the complainant to allow this right rendered the complaint invalid. The court emphasized that the report of the Government Analyst is not conclusive if the accused intends to contest it within the specified timeframe.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned complaint and proceedings initiated thereupon were set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Javed Iqbal Wani, J.) :
1. Inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A (now 482 Cr.P.C.) is being invoked by the petitioners seeking quashment of proceedings in criminal complaint (for short impugned complaint) filed under sections 18(a)(i) read with section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act) titled as "Union of India v. Dr. K.K. Patel & Ors." as also order dated 16.09.2016 (for short the impugned order) pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu (for short the trial court).
2. According to the petitioners the impugned complaint came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 herein before the trial court against the petitioners herein and on the basis of which, the trial court is stated to have taken cognizance and issued process against the petitioners herein in terms of the impugned order after observing that prima-facie offences under section 18(i)(a) read with Section 27(d) of the Act are committed by the petitioners herein.
3. It is alleged in the impugned complaint that the complainant/petitioners herein being Drug Inspector appointed under the Act and in exercise of his power therein conducted a routine inspection on 25.04.2013 at District Anantnag, while visiting the premises of M.M.A.B.M District Hospital, Anantnag and after disclosing her identity found huge stock of Drugs namely Midanir-1000 (Ceftriaxone Injection IP) Batch No. 1012043A, Mfg. date 06-2014, Exp. date 05-2014 lying there for sale and distribution and lifted samples of drugs for testing/analysis while expressing her intention to do so. The drug is stated to have been divided and sealed into 4 portions and whereafter sent one sealed sample portion of the drug in question to Government Analyst C.D.L. Kolkata. A certificate of Test dated 18.07.2013 is stated to have been received from the Government Analyst C.D.L. Kolkata under section 25(1) of the Act of 1940 declaring the drug not of 'standard quality' and not conforming to B.P with respect to assay of Midazolam and PH only.
4. It is stated in the complaint that after receipt of the aforesaid test report, the complainant vide letter dated 30.07.2013 directed Medical Superintendent M.M.A.B.M District Hospital Anantnag to submit the details of the dealer from whom the drug in question has been purchased. A copy of the test report is stated to have been furnished to Medical Superintendent along with the said letter. The Medical Superintendent in response to the aforesaid letter is stated to have submitted the record of purchase with regard to the drug in question to the complainant, revealing that the drug in question has been supplied and distributed to the Superintendent by Provincial Medical Store Baramulla, whereafter Notice dated 17.10.2013, is stated to have been issued by the complainant/respondent herein to the said Medical Store for disclosing the name of the person/dealer from whom the drug has been purchased and in response thereto the said Medical Store vide Reply dated 19.11.2013 is stated to have disclosed that the drug in question has been supplied by Caulson and Co. Trikuta Nagar, Jammu and whereafter a notice Dated 27.11.2013 is stated to have been issued to the said Caulson and Co., by the complainant asking for disclosing the name of the dealer from whom drug in question had been purchased and in response whereof it is stated to have been disclosed vide Reply dated 02.12.2013 that the same had been purchased from M/s Anshul Medicos, Amritsar and whereafter again notice dated 03.12.2013 is stated to have been issued to said M/s Anshul Medicos by the complainant for disclosing the name of the dealer/manufacturer from whom the drug in question had been purchased, in response whereof it is stated to have been disclosed vide Reply dated 11.12.2013 that the drug in question had been purchased from the accused company.
5. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant after receiving the aforesaid information issued a no
The right to re-examine a drug sample under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is a critical safeguard for the accused, and failure to comply with this provision invalidates the complaint.
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....
Seizure of sub-standard quality of drug – When report of Government Analyst itself is shrouded in serious suspicion and it is not sure as to whether report of Government Analyst relates to sample lif....
Drugs and Cosmetics - Criminal Proceedings quashed - Statutory right of petitioner for retesting drugs in question under sections 25(3) and 25(4) of Act has been violated by respondent and learned tr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of the accused under sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must be upheld, and any violation of these right....
The right of the petitioner to adduce evidence under sub sections 3 and 4 of section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was crucial in influencing the court's decision to quash the entire criminal pro....
The prosecution of drug quality violations is unsustainable when testing delays invalidate the accused's rights to challenge the results, highlighting the need for timely compliance under the Drugs a....
Quash of Criminal proceedings - once it is shown that the right of accused to adduce evidence in controversion of the Government Analyst’s report is defeated due to acts and omission of the Drugs Ins....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
