ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition had been filed to quash the Complaint in C.C.No.46 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur.

2.Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners Mr.Sathish Parasaran submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the Drug Inspector/Respondent had filed the Criminal Complaint against the Company – M/s. Baxter India Pvt., Ltd., and its Managing Director – Mr.Ravinder Pal Singh Dang; the Director – Mr.Gautam Kumar and another person, who is the competent person, Mr.M.Raja. The complaint had been filed under Section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rules 65(3)(1), 65(5)(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, punishable under Section 27(d) of the said Act. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that the first Accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur is the Company – M/s.Baxter India Private Limited which has multiple drug licence – one for the territory of the Delhi and another for the territory of Tamil Nadu. In this case, the fourth Accused is the competent person, who is a Pharmacist of the first Accused Company. Therefore, only the two Directors of the Company, who were arrayed as A-2 and A-3, had filed this Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the Criminal Complaint against them on the ground that the complaint is bereft of details regarding the incriminating materials against the Accused 2 and 3, who were only Managing Director and Director of the Company. Mr.Ravinder Pal Singh Dang is the Managing Director and Mr.Gautam Kumar, Director of the Company. The complaint does not give specific averments regarding the role of the Director and Managing Director in maintaining the registers with particulars like the Doctor who prescribed the medicine, address of the Hospital, name of the distributor, purchase invoice number are not maintained in the Registers. The subject matter of the complaint are:

“During inspection, the purchase and sale of Schedule H and other drugs were verified by P.W-1 and the following contraventions were noticed.

1.The supply of the drugs by way of retail on the prescription of the registered Practitioner were not recorded at the time of supply in the prescription register specifically maintained for the purpose, and it is not continuously signed by the endorsed registered pharmacist from 1st March 2016 to 30 March 2017, Name of the prescriber and patient is mentioned but the address of the prescriber, patient is not mentioned in the prescription register, it is in contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rules 65(3)(1) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the said Act.

2.The supply of drugs by way of wholesales was made against cash or credit memo in which the name of the manufacturer is not mentioned, Drug license number of the licensee to whom the drugs were sold is incorrectly mentioned as listed in Table-I. It is in contravention under Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with rule 65(5)(1) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the said Act.

Table-I

S. No.	Sales Invoice number	Date	D.L. Number
1.	INI1633006414	25.1.17	Incorrectly mentioned
2.	INI1633006881	27.03.2017	Incorrectly mentioned
3.	INI1633006142	08.02.2017	Incorrectly mentioned

Therefore, Thiru.M.Raja, competent person of M/s.Baxter India Pvt., Ltd, Survey No.219-1A1B, 225/4B, Block-C, Ground Floor, Kothari Warehouse, Madhavaram Redhills Road, Puzhal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District, Chennai – 60 was requested to produce following original records and documents under Section 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for verification.

1.Original Drug Licence in form 20, 21, 20B and 21B.

2.Purchase Invoices of the following:

(a) Purchase invoice of M/s.Baxter (India) Private Limited, Thane, Bhiwandi Maharastra India 421302. Invoice No.INI16320

Click Here to Read the rest of this document