The central legal point established is the importance of the accused's right to get the sample reanalysed by the Central Drugs Laboratory within the statutory period, as provided under S. 25 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-9-2001 passed by 1st Additional Sessions judge, Rat. am in Criminal Appeal No. 235 of 2000, whereby upheld the judgment and order of convication dated 5-10-2000, passed by Chief judicial Magistrate, Ratlam in criminal Case No. 4317 of 1990. The applicants accused stood convicted under S. 18 (a) (i) and 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics act, 1940 (hereinafter for brevity shall be referred to as the 'act') and sentenced to undergo R. I for one year and to pay a fine of rs. 5,000/-, in default to further undergo s. I. for one mouth.

( 2 ) THE order dated 22-11-2005 shows that applicant No. 1 had reported to be died on 27-8-2005. In this regard the counsel for applicant has already filed an I. A. 6907 of 2005. In support of the LA, He has also filed the death certificate issued by Municipal corporation, Indore. The learned G. A. has also admined this fact. Thus the name of applicant No. 1 he deleted from the cause title. Now the revision remains only challenging thi conviction and sentence passed against applicant No, 2.

( 3 ) THE short facts of the case are that applicants were manufacturer of a drug called "furaszolidone Tablets BPC. 68 100mg. " under the name and style of Joy pharmaceutical Laboratories in their Unit situated at 17, Pagnis Paga, Indore. The aforesaid drug is used as an anti-diarrhocal drug. The said drug was supplied to the govt. Hospital, Ratlam and on 7-10-1989 drug Inspector Mukund Tayade inspected the Govt. Hospital Ratlam and picked up and seized certain tablets from the store room of the Hospital. A panchnama was drawn by the Drug Inspector regarding seizure of the tablets and after making four separate packets of the 50 tablets each, one packet was sent to the Government Analyst at bhopal for examination. One parcel was sent to the applicants which was received by them on 3-12-1989. A clarification was sought by the applicants from the Drug Inspector, who in turn on 6-1-1990 send the required clarification.

( 4 ) IT is alleged that Govt. Analyst Bhopal on examination found that the same sample of the drug Furazolidone tablets of batch No. 3671 was of the sub-standard. On the label of the tablet it was mentioned that it contain 100 mg. Furazolidone, whereas, on analysis it was found only 59 mg. The drug was supplied by the applicants to the Govt. Hospital, Ratlam vide bill/challan No. 158 dated 31-8-1989. A copy of the Public analyst's report along with the second part of the sample was sent to the applicants in compliance of the provision of S. 15 of the act.

( 5 ) THE applicants denied the contents of the report and challenged It under S. 25 (3)of the Act. Thereafter complaint was filed against the applicants by the Drug Inspector before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam on 7-5-1990.

( 6 ) THE applicants appeared before the court for the first time on 22-2-1993. On that day they moved an application under s. 23 (4) read with S. 25 (4) of the Act. The court directed them to deposit certain fees for getting the sample tested by Central drugs Laboratory. Since the drugs in question had already crossed its period of expiry in August, 1992, therefore, the applicants did not choose to get It tested by Central drugs Laboratory. Thereafter trial commenced and concluded against the applicants and the trial Court found them guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated herein above. ( 7 ) SHRI S. C. Bagadiya, Sr. Advocate appearing for applicant has raised the first contention that it was the valuable right of the applicants to get the another part of the sample examined by Central Drugs Laboratory. At the very first opportunity an objection in this regard was raised by the applicants by sending the letters Ex. P. 6, P. 7 and p. 9 to the Drug Inspector. In letter Ex. P. 9 it has been clearly stated that the applicants do not. agree with the finding of the test report send by the Drug Inspector to them and they not only challenged the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document