J U D G M E N T

The appeal by the State represented by Senior Drug Inspector.

Aggrieved by the order of acquittal by the Trial Court in a complaint filed against the respondents for contravention and violation of Sessions 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with 65 (6), 65(4)(3)(ii) and 65(4)(4) of Drugs Rules

1945.

2. The case of the complainant is that, on 11.12.2000, the Senior Drug Inspector inspected the 1st accused/Company, in which, 2nd accused is the Managing Director and 3rd accused is the Manager. The 1st accused firm found that the carbon copies of the sales bills for the period 01.01.2000 till date, was not maintained. Similarly, the purchase bills for tablets Rantac 15 mg Batch No.1112, Daonil tablets batch No.290350 and Metformin 500 mg tablets (cipla) were not available. The inspection was conducted based on a specific complaint from one Muthu Kumar alleging that, when Dr.K.Balachandran, Senior Civil Surgeon, has prescribed Glyciphage and Zinetac 150 mg for his ailment. The 1st respondent firm sold to him Metformin 500 (cipla) and Rantac 150mg vide bill No.1610 dated 15.11.2000. After serving notice for production of these documents, the respondents failed to produce the said carbon copies of the sales bills and purchase bills for the respective drugs.

3. Complaint was filed stating that, the inspection has to be revealed that 1st accused firm not maintaining the prescription register upto date. No entires for supply of drugs on prescription were made. The carbon copies of the sales bills for the sale of drug during 01.11.2000 not maintainable and not furnished for verification during inspection. The purchase bills for Rantac 150 mg batch No.1112, Daonil tablets batch No.290350 and Metformin 500 mg (cipla) which alleged to have been sold under sales bills No.1610 dated 15.11.2000 not maintainable and furnished during inspection. The printed format with details of supplies of drug on prescription of registered medical practitioners from 01.11.2000 to 06.12.2000 not produced during inspection. Mr.R.Senthil Rajesh, registered Pharmacist produced few of the documents. After obtaining certified copies of the extract, same was returned. To the show cause notice dated 11.12.2000 for production of documents and the subsequent reminder dated 30.03.2001 received by the 1st accused firm and the reply dated 24.04.2001 seeking copy of the letter issued during investigation was sought. Though, the copy of the said letter already served to the accused persons, another copy was sent to them along with letter dated 26.04.2001. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 29.04.2001 to the firm for contraventions of Sections 18(c) of Act read with 65(3), 65(4)(3)(ii), 65(4)(4) and 65(6) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules was served on the accused. The reply of the accused dated 19.09.2001 was not satisfactory and taking other necessary action, complaint was lodged, after obtaining sanction. The accused which is the company represented by its Managing Director and Manager. After the complaint taken cognizance, 3rd accused absconded and case against him was split up.

4. To prove the charges, 5 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were marked. On the side of the accused 3 witnesses were examined.

5. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence acquitted the accused for all charges holding that P.W.1 to P.W.3 admit that Pharmacist is responsible for maintaining of records pertaining to the business of the accused company. While so, the prosecution failed to explain why the pharmacist not prosecuted. Therefore, holding that the complainant did not issue proper show cause notice to the appropriate person, who is responsible to the authority. To reply their show cause notice, neither the Managing Director of the Company nor the Manager are competent person to say anything with regard to the show cause notice. Even without ascertaining the persons concern with business of the 1st accused, complaint filed in haste to be dismissed.

6. The com