IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

367 Date of decision: 10.03.2026 State through Senior Drugs Inspector, Rohtak Zone, Rohtak ...Appellant (s)

VERSUS Ram Narain Saini and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Armaan Dahiya, DAG Haryana.

Ms. Khushboo Ansari, Advocate for the respondent(s)

(Legal Aid Counsel).

*****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak in Criminal Complaint No.204/2 of 2000 titled as ‘State through Senior Drugs Inspector, Rohtak Zone, Rohtak Vs. Ram Narain Saini and another’ arising out of complaint under Section 18/27 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and rules made thereunder, whereby the accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them.

2. The complaint in question was filed by the State through the Senior Drugs Inspector, Rohtak Zone, Rohtak against the accused- respondent(s) alleging therein that on 07.07.1998, the complainant, alongwith the District Drug Inspector, conducted an inspection of the clinic of Dr. Sunil Verma, BAMS, situated at Sukhpura Chowk, G.T. Road, Rohtak, acting upon secret information that respondent No.2, namely M/s.

International Cosmo Chemical, Rohtak, had supplied a drug known as Proteomin Syrup to Dr. Sunil Verma. During the course of the said inspection, it was found that Dr. Sunil Verma had stocked 25 bottles of Proteomin Liquid (200 ml each), bearing Batch No. 36, manufactured in November 1996 and having an expiry date of October 1998, which had been manufactured by respondent No.2 – M/s. International Cosmo Chemical, Rohtak alongwith other drugs for the purposes of sale and distribution to his patients.

3. The District Durg Inspector purchased the Proteomin liquid from Dr. Sunil Verma for the purpose of drawing a sample, thereafter, the sample so obtained was sent to the Govt. Analyst, Haryana for testing/analysis and vide letter dated 09.07.1998, the accused/respondents were called upon to furnish an explanation regarding manufacturing and sale of the aforesaid drug without possessing a valid license for its manufacture and for having sold the said drug during the period when the licence of the manufacturing unit stood suspended.

4. It was further averred that the State Drugs Controller, Haryana, Chandigarh issued a show-cause notice to the accused-firm and reply to the said notice dated 22.09.1998 was also received from the firm. It was also stated that, upon receipt of the test report from the Government Analyst, Haryana, it was observed that the contents of the active ingredients in the sampled drug had not been expressed in the manner prescribed under Rule 96(iii)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1945’). Finding it to be a case of misbranding in view of the provisions under Section 17(b) of the Act of 1945, the proceedings were initiated.

5. It was further alleged that no reply was received from the accused-firm to the communication dated 09.07.1998. Thereafter, the State Drugs Controller, Haryana granted sanction for prosecution of the accused– respondent(s). Pursuant to the said sanction, the present complaint came to be filed, alleging that the accused–respondent(s) had contravened the provisions of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder by manufacturing the drug “Proteomin Syrup” for sale and by effecting its sale without possessing a valid licence for the relevant period.

6. It was further alleged that the acts attributed to the accused– respondent(s) also constituted offences punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as well as Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the said violations rendered the respondents liable for punishment under Section 27(d) of the Act. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, ap