The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that the petitioner can avail remedy indicated under sub-section 4 of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 by requesting the Court to send the other portion of the sample remaining in the court to be tested at the Central Drugs Laboratory.
However, no Court is under compulsion to cause the said sample to be tested if the request is made after a long delay. However, the discretion is conferred to the Court to decide whether such a sample should be sent to the Central Analyst Report from the report on the strength of such request.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Ofloxacin Infusion manufactured by the Petitioner-Company was found not of standard quality as per the test reports of the Government Analyst working in the Central Drug Laboratory. After that, the complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector, Ranchi. Aggrieved by this, the present petition has been filed in order to quash the complaint case wherein cognizance has been taken under section 27(d) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the drug inspector filed the complaint without following the procedure of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was furthermore submitted that if the procedure of sections 23 and 25 of the acts are not followed the valuable right of the petitioner was not allowed to be exercised and because of that, no fair trial can take place. The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled T. Nagappa V. Y.R. Muralidhar.
Contentions of the state
The state submitted that the Proclamation without supporting documentation demonstrating that the petitioner has not received any high-quality complaints from the market, medical professionals, or hospitals does not establish the petitioner's innocence. It was furthermore submitted that the information was received from the Director, Rajendra Institutes of Medical Sciences, Bariatu, Ranchi regarding the reaction of the drug observed in a patient who was treated with Travid I.V (Ofloxacin Infusion) manufactured by the petitioner’s company. Also, Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been complied with.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that disputed question of fact is there as to whether the standard was followed by the government analyst while conducting analysis of drugs can be agitated during trial and reliance was made upon the judgment of the apex court titled as Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
The court furthermore observed that by asking the court to send the remaining portion of the sample to be examined at the Central Drugs Laboratory, the petitioner can take advantage of the remedy specified under sub-section 4 of Section 25 of the Act. But if the request is made after a significant amount of time has passed, no Court is required to order the aforementioned sample to be examined in this way. The Court is granted the discretion to determine whether the Central Analyst Report should get this sample based on the strength of such request.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exist disputed questions of fact and the same can only be decided in the trial.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Petition.
Case Title: M/s Aventies Pharma Limited Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 1870 of 2011
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (Through V.C.) Mr. Akshat Hansaria, Advocate(Through V.C.) Mrs. Jyoti Nayan, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source : https://pixnio.com/free-images/science/medical-science/drug-paraphernalia-were-a-number-of-red-oblong-tablets-rows-or-lines-725x483.jpg
