The Drugs Inspector vs Galla Durga Prasad And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3147 Tel

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. The respondents were acquitted for the offence under

Section 18(a)(i) r/w Section 16(1)(a) of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 1940 after trial by the I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad (for short 'the learned

Magistrate') by judgment in CC No.341 of 2015 dated

08.02.2019. Questioning the said finding of the learned

Magistrate acquitting the respondents, present appeal is

filed by the State.

2. The case of the Drug Inspector/P.W.1 is that on

20.04.2010, they inspected the premises of M/s.Nizamabad

Medical Agencies situated at Gole Hanuman Road,

Nizamabad and lifted the sample of Strizole 20mg tablets,

batch NO.STT-014, which was manufactured by the 2nd

respondent/A2 which is a company situated in Haridwar

District. The seized drugs from M/s.Nizamabad Medical

Agencies were sent to Government Analyst, Drugs Control

Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of analysis and

opinion. P.W.1 received analyst report stating that the 2 KS,J Crla_136_2020

samples were not of standard quality for the reason of the

sample not meeting the requirement of disintegration test

for enteric coated tablet. After receipt of the analyst report,

P.W.1-Drug Inspector sent a notice to the said

M/s.Nizamabad Medical Agencies. The said Medical Agency

addressed reply letter dated 03.07.2010 stating that the

drugs were supplied by M/s.Stride Therapeutics, having its

office at Goutham Nagar, Malkajgiri, Secunderabad.

Thereafter, P.W.1 addressed a letter to M/s.Stride

Therapeutics requesting to disclose regarding the drugs

found at M/s.Nizamabad Medical Agencies. In reply,

M/s.Stride Therapeutics sent reply stating that drug was

supplied by M/s.V.L.Pharmaceuticals situated at Kachiguda

Hyderabad. Upon receipt of the said letter from M/s.Stride

Therapeutics, P.W.1 again addressed letter to

M/s.V.L.Pharmaceuticals requesting to disclose the details

of the drugs seized from M/s.Nizamabad Medical Agencies.

The said M/s.V.L.Pharmaceuticals sent reply dated

01.09.2010 stating that they did not agree with the contents

of the Government analyst in Form-13 and requested to

send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata 3 KS,J Crla_136_2020

and sent DD for a sum of Rs.1,000/- in favour of the

Director Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata along with batch

of manufacturing records, raw material etc.

3. After receipt of the drug analyst report dated

14.02.2011, which gave opinion stating that 'the sample

drug is of not standard quality as the sample does not

confirm to claim with respect to the test for disintegration,

P.W.1 addressed letter to the 2nd respondent/A2 company

on 11.08.2011. The 2nd respondent addressed a reply along

with company's licence. However, P.W.1 filed a compliant

against respondents herein for the offences punishable

under Section 18(a)(i) r/w Section 16 punishable under

Section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. The learned Magistrate, having examined P.Ws.1 to 3

and marking of the documents, which are Exs.P1 to P28

found the respondents not guilty for the alleged offences on

the following grounds; i) in the present case, there are two

certificates issued one vide Ex.P6 which is certificate of

analysis issued by the Government Analyst, State Drug

Laboratory and Ex.P25 in Form-2 certificate of Analysis

issued by the Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata.

 4                                                                 KS,J
                                                        Crla_136_2020

However, the description of the drugs mentioned in Exs.P6

and P25 vary. In Ex.P6, the description of the drug received

for analysis was mentioned as "Tablets are maroon

coloured elongated , flat edged biconvex and uniform",

whereas in Ex.P25, description of the drug received for

analysis is mentioned as "Brown coloured, elliptical enteric

coated tablet in aluminum strip'. In the cross-examination

of P.W.2, it was mentioned that the description as

mentioned in Exs.P6 and P25 are different.

5. Further, the Court found that there is no certificate or

any document provided to show that the certificate of

analysis issued by Government Analyst under Ex.P6 was by

a validly appointed analyst in accordance with the

provisions of Section 20 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

6. The learned Magistrate having found that the

description of the drug was different under both Exs.P6 and

P25, held that in the description of the sample would in fact

reveal that there is a difference, for which reason, the

prosecution cannot be maintained. The learned Magistrate

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5 KS,J Crla_136_2020

the case of State of Haryana v. Gursewak Dass1, wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances having

found the discrepancy in the description of sample extended

the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused therein.

7. In the above mentioned circumstances, when the

complainant/Drug Inspector having admitted that (i) it is

not mentioned in Ex.P6 regarding the details and methods

applied for analysis of the drug (ii) there is a discrepancy

with regard to the samples being sent to the State lab and

also the Central Lab at Kolkata, the findings of the trial

Court in extending the benefit of doubt to the accused

cannot be interfered with.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. As a

sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.6.2022 kvs

2015(2) Drugs Cases (DC) 39 (Supreme Court of India) 6 KS,J Crla_136_2020

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2020

Date:29.06.2022

kvs 7 KS,J Crla_136_2020