G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
Zest Pharma, Rep by Its Partner Shri. Sudhir Vora – Appellant
Versus
State Rep By Drugs Inspector Coimbatore II Range Office Of Assistant Director Of Drugs Control Coimbatore – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the proceedings in S.T.C.No.776 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore and quash the complaint.)
1. This petition is filed to call for the proceedings in STC No.776 of 2015 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore and to quash the complaint
2. Respondent filed this complaint against the petitioners for the contravention of the offences under section 18(a)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. The sample of Rabtek, Rabeprazole Tablets IP (20mg) was drawn for analysis by the Deputy Inspector, Coimbatore from ESI Dispensary, Madhukarai. The sealed sample was sent to Government Analyst (Drugs), Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chennai. The test report dated 10.12.2013 declared the sample as not of standard quality for the reason that sample does not confirm to IP specification for Rabeprazole Tablets with respect to the content of cf Rabeprazole Tablets sodium (61.05%) and to the dissolution in buffer medium. The sample medicine disclosed that the subject drug was supplied by Central Medical St
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely notification under Section 25(3) and (4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the implications of the denial of the oppor....
Delay in analysis deprived accused of rights under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, justifying quashing of proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive nature of the State Analyst Report and the requirement to exercise the statutory right to request re-analysis by the Central Drugs L....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the accused to have a sample tested under Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the consequences of delay in testing, which ca....
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....
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period for filing a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the consequen....
[The report of the Government Analyst under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is conclusive unless challenged within 28 days, and compliance with the sampling procedure is mandatory.]
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....
The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in drug quality cases, particularly the timely filing of complaints and the rights of manufacturers to contest lab findin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.