Prosecution cannot stand due to non-compliance of of mandatory provisions.

Seven accused faced a trial for offences under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(ii) and 18(a)(ii)(a) read with Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C.C. No. 33638 of 1975. Accused 1 to 5 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. A-6 and A-7 were found guilty of the offences with which they were charged; A-7 was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under each count in default to suffer R.I. for three months and A6 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under each count

2. The complainant, namely, the Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, South Zone, Madras-1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 482 of 1977 to enhance the punishment imposed on accused 6 and 7 Tr. Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1978 has been filed by Accused 6 and 7 challenging the correctness of the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court on them

3. The case of the prosecution is as follows. On 11th March, 1974, the Drugs Inspector, South Zone, Madras, inspected the premises of A1 and collected 4 x 400 gms. of Glycerine I.P. batch No. 055 repacked by Modern Drugs, Hyderabad. One sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Calcutta, whose report stated that the sample is not of standard quality and that it is misbranded and adulterated. Accused 2 and 3 are the partners of A1. A show-cause notice was issued to A3 who was in charge of the firm. In reply, A3 sent a letter stating that he acquired the drug from A4. The complainant sent one sample to A4 and A4 replied that he had acquired the drug from Messrs Modern Drugs, A6 which was owned by A7

4. On behalf of the prosecution, apart from the Central Drugs Inspector, PW 1, another Drugs Inspector, PW 2, and the Drugs Inspector of Hyderabad PW 3, were examined. According to PW 1, he inspected the premises of A1 on 11th March, 1974. He took samples of Glycerine I.P. batch No. 055 repacked by Modern Drugs. He collected four samples, sealed them and handed over one sample to the person who was in charge of A1's premises, under From 17. Ex. P1. One sample was sent to the Government Analyst. In this report, Ex P4 the Government Analyst stated that the sample was not of standard quality, that it was not glycerine and that it was misbranded

5. PW 2 is the Drugs Inspector, according to whom, a show cause notice was sent to A3 enclosing a copy of the Analyst's report and asking the source of its purchase. A3 sent a reply stating that it was A4 who sold the same under four invoices marked as Ex. P7 series. So a notice was sent to A4 making him to notify the source of purchase to which A4 replied that he purchased it from A6. One copy of the report was sent to the Drugs Controller, Andhra Pradesh for taking action

6. P.W. 3 is the Drugs Inspector, Hyderabad. On information from the Assistant Drugs Controller, South Zone, Madras, that one batch of 055 Glycerine was declared as misbranded, he visited the firm Sham Agencies, A-4, who produced Ex. P-10 series for having purchased the same from A-6

7. When the accused were examined, accused 6 and 7 stated that they got the Glycerine from one C. K. Shah and Company, Bombay, that they repacked the same and supplied to other dealers, and that the Glycerine was of genuine quality. A-7 examined himself as DW 1 and stated that he purchased the Glycerine under Exs. D-1 and D-2 from C. K. Shah and Company and under Exs. D-4 and D-5 from Super Pharma and Surgical Company. After the purchase, he repacked the same and supplied it to other dealers He stated that, in respect of 055 batch number of Glycerine repacked by him, the test report has been taken away along with other records by the Bombay Police in connection with the investigation of some other case

Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1977 & Tr. Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1978

8. Twelve accused faced a trial for offences under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(ii) and 18(a)(ii)(a) read with S. 27 of the Dru