Bombay High Court
Ramesh Lulla, Chairman And M.D. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Atul ... on 3 October, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp577.11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Criminal Writ Petition No.577 of 2011
1. Shri Ramesh Lulla,
Chairman and Managing Director
of M/s. Endo Labs Limited,
A.B. Road, Pigdamber,
Rau, 453446 (M.P.) India,
R/o 115, Triveni Colony Extension,
Indore, M.P. ... Original Accused No.1.
2. Shri Dheeraj Lulla,
Executive Director of M/s Endo
Labs Limited,
A.B. Road,
Pigdamber, Rau, 453446, (M.P.)
India, R/o 115, Triveni Colony
Extension, Indore M.P. ... Original Accused No.2.
3. Shri Siddhartha Lulla,
Executive Director of
M/s. Endo Labs Limited,
A.B. Road,
Pigdember, Rau, 453446, (M.P.)
India, R/o 115, Triveni Colony
Extension, Indore M.P. ... Original Accused No.3.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Shri Atul Vijayrao Mandlekar,
Drugs Inspector,
Office of Assistant Commissioner,
::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2017 01:53:05 :::
2
wp577.11.odt
Food and Drugs Administration
(M.S.), Bhandara. ... Original Complainant.
2. Shri Shailendra Agrawal,
Person responsible for
manufacturing and Technical
Director of M/s Endo Labs Limited,
A.B. Road, Pigdamber
Rau-453446 (M.P.), India,
R/o 9/2 South Tukonganj,
Sadanand Apartments,
Flat No.203, 2nd Floor,
Indore-1. ... Original Accused No.4.
3. Shri Ajit K. Gulani,
the then person responsible
for testing of M/s. Endo Labs
Limited,
A.B. Road, Pigdamber
Rau-453446 (M.P.),
India, R/o 70/1, B.K. Sindhi Colony,
Indore, M.P. ... Original Accused No.5.
... Respondents
None for Petitioners.
Smt. Geeta Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent
No.1/State.
Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J.
rd
Dated : 3 October, 2017
Oral Judgment :
1. This petition challenges Criminal Complaint R.C.C.
No.251 of 2011 filed by the respondent No.1/State against the
wp577.11.odt
petitioners, who are made the accused therein, alleging the
offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16(1)(a) and
17-B(d) punishable under Section 27(a) and (d) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petition also challenges the order
dated 29-9-2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhandara, whereby the learned Magistrate issued the summons
to the petitioners.
2. On 25-10-2011, this Court passed an order as under :
" Heard.
Issue notice before admission returnable in four
weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
returnable date of the accused summons is 3/11/2011.
Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, prima facie, I find that the procedure required
to be followed for issuance of summons outside the
jurisdiction of the court, has not been followed. That
being so, ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (iv).
Shri Rokde, learned APP waives notice on behalf
of respondent no.1."
wp577.11.odt
3. Thereafter on 5-7-2012 also, this Court
(Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.) passed a speaking order recording
the challenge that it is only the persons, who are responsible for
maintaining the quality of drugs manufactured, who can be
prosecuted for the drugs being sold as "Not of Standard Quality"
and the Directors of the Company cannot, therefore, be
prosecuted.
4. The matter remained unattended on the part of the
petitioners on 21-11-2015, and it was kept for dismissal on
7-12-2015. Again on 9-8-2017, none appeared for the
petitioners. The matter was, therefore, dismissed in default. It
was then restored on 21-8-2017. It was adjourned thereafter on
25-9-2017, at the request of the counsel for the petitioners.
5. Today, none appears for the petitioners. I have heard
Smt. Tiwari, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
wp577.11.odt
for the respondent No.1/State.
6. After going through the provisions of Sections 16(1)(a)
and 17-B(d) read with Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, prima facie it is shown that the manufacturer can
be prosecuted for not maintaining the standard quality of drugs
manufactured. The liability also arises in the case of distribution
of such drugs. In the present case, the distribution of the drugs
in question was at Bhandara, which is within the jurisdiction of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara. Prima facie, it does not
seem that the petitioners/accused can be prosecuted for the acts
alleged against them.
7. So far as failure to follow the procedure under
Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code is concerned, there
does not appear to be any enquiry by the Magistrate himself or
any investigation by the Police Officer or any such other person,
as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the
Code. Though this is the specific ground raised in the petition,
wp577.11.odt
there is no response to it in the reply filed by the respondent
No.1/State. In view of this, the issuance of summons under
Section 61 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhandara, to the petitioners will have to be quashed
and set aside with liberty to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
to proceed further in the matter of investigation.
8. After the dictation of the entire judgment,
Shri S.N. Tapadia, Advocate, holding for Shri V.V. Bhangde,
Advocate, appears for the petitioners and submits that the
complaint pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhandara, has been withdrawn by the respondent No.1/State. If
this is the position, it shall be open for the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate to consider this aspect of the matter also.
9. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. The order
dated 29-9-2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhandara, issuing summons to the accused persons in R.C.C.
No.251 of 2011 at Annexure 3, is hereby quashed and set aside.
wp577.11.odt
The matter is remitted back to the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, who shall pass an appropriate order by taking into
consideration the contentions raised by the petitioners.
10. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
JUDGE.
Lanjewar
