HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
M/S.ETHICARE LABORATORIES – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 3996/2015
Criminal - Drug Offences - Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Sections 18(a)(i), 27(d) - The court allowed accused to file for discharge and temporarily stayed their presence.
Fact of the Case:
The Drug Inspector alleged that a veterinary drug manufactured by the first accused was substandard following sampling, resulting in a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court permitted the petitioners to file a discharge petition and stated that their presence would not be required until the petition was considered.
Issues: Whether the accused could file a discharge petition and what would be the procedural implications until that petition was resolved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the accused are entitled to seek discharge before the trial court; consequently, it stayed their presence pending the resolution of the discharge petition.
Final Decision: Petitioners allowed to file discharge petition with no requirement for their presence until its consideration.
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 878/2013 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The above case is filed by the Drug Inspector alleging offences punishable under Secs. 18(a)(i) r/w 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act .
2.The prosecution case is that on 28.01.2010, the Drug Inspector has drawn a drug sample of ETHIRUB-Iodine Methyl Salicylate ointment Batch No. E0501, Manufacturing date: May, 2009, Expiry Date: April, 2011 manufactured by the 1st accused under Sec. 23 of the Act. When the same was forwarded for analysis, the Government Analyst, Drug Testing Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram reported that the said veterinary drug is substandard. Hence , the complaint is filed.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners in length, I think the petitioners can be allowed to file a discharge petition before the trial court and if such a discharge petition is filed, there can be a direction to the Sessions Judge not to insist the presence of the petitioners, till discharge petition is considered. All the contentions raised by the petitioners in this Crl.M.C. are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same before the trial court in the discharge petition.
Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is disposed of in the following manner:
1.The petitioners are free to file a discharge petition before the jurisdictional court within thirty days from the date of receipt of a stamped certified copy of this order, if charge is not framed.
2.Once such a discharge petition is received, the jurisdictional court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the Prosecutor concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the discharge petition.
3.If a discharge petition is filed as directed above, the presence of the petitioners shall not be insisted, till final orders are passed in the discharge petition.
4.All the contentions raised by the petitioners in this criminal miscellaneous case are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same in the discharge petition.
5.Coercive steps against the petitioners also shall be kept in abeyance, till final orders are passed in the discharge petition, if the same is filed as directed above.
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.