At the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider the allegations made in the complaint and the supporting documents. The court should not delve into the evidence or conduct a mini-trial. A dealer can be prosecuted for selling spurious drugs without the manufacturer being made a co-accused.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Chand, J.

The instant criminal revision is preferred on behalf of petitioner, namely, Abhay Kumar Gupta against the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara whereby the application for the discharge moved on behalf of the petitioner in connection with O.C.R Case No. 128 of 2015, corresponding to Drugs and Cosmetics Act no. 1/2017, under section 27(C) and 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been rejected.

2. The matrix of the complaint case is that on 16.08.2014 the sample of “Neomet Oral Suspension” Batch No.1 manufactured dated 01/2012 expiry date 12/2014 by M/s. New Lab Industry, Ram Nagar, Kurthaul, Patna was collected from the Sadar Hospital, Jamtara in Form No. 17 that sample was sent for the test to Govt. Analyst, Jharkhand State Drug Testing Laboratory, Namkum, Ranchi in Form No. 18. The sample of the “Neomet Oral Suspension” Batch No.1 manufactured dated 01/2012 expiry date 12/2014 manufactured by M/s. New Lab Industry, Kurthaul, Patna was declared ''not of standard quality” in respect of content and labelling as mentioned in Govt. Analyst test report no. GA-583 dated 19.09.2014 under provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A copy of the test report was sent to the storekeeper namely, Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Drug Store, Sadar Hospital, Jamtara vide office letter no. 49/14 dated 11.10.2014 and to the Civil Surgeon, Jamtara vide office letter no. 48/14 dated 10.11.2014 asked to produce the purchase invoice of “Neomet Oral Suspension” Batch No.1 manufactured dated 01/2012 expiry date 12/2014. In compliance of the letter no. 49/14 dated 11.10.2014 the storekeeper namely, Mr. Rabindra Kumar produced the purchase invoice of M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and General Order suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi.

3. Vide office letter no. 56/14 dated 17.10.2014 M/s. Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi was asked to produce the purchase invoice of the drug in question and in the compliance of the same the representative of M/s Megha Enterprises produced the purchase invoice of M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi, Bill No. 211 dated 17.10.2012 and photocopy of the licence and renewal of the shop produced by M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi. Vide letter no.63/14 dated 11.11.2014 M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi was requested to produce the purchase invoice of drug in question. M/s Abhishek Enterprises denied to accept the letter which was returned. Vide office letter no. 69/14 dated 18.11.2014 Civil Surgeon, Jamtara requested to produce regarding the document of tender and bidding. In compliance of this letter, Civil Surgeon, Jamtara produced the documents regarding tender and bidding. After grant permission from the Director (Drugs), Directorate State Drugs Control Administration, Jharkhand, Namkum, Ranch, inspection of M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi was made alongwith Local Drug Inspector and the inspection report was submitted to the Director (Drugs), Directorate State Drugs Control Administration, Jharkhand, Namkum, Ranchi. A sealed portion of the sample and copy of the test report was also sent to Civil Surgeon, Jamtara in compliance for the provision of Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 under section 23(4), 25(2) and 18(a) because the manufacturer denied the manufacture the drug in question. In vide office letter no. 109/15 dated 02.06.2015 requesting grant approval for the prosecution and same was granted by the Director (Drugs), Directorate State Drugs Control Administration, Jharkhand, Namkum, Ranchi on 04.06.2015.

4. As per documents produced by the Civil Surgeon Office, Jamtara and the correspondence from suppliers and manufacturing companies (as per label), this had been established that “Neomet Oral Suspension” the drug in question was supplied and distributed to the Drug Store, Sadar