Decided on June 04,2019

Parenteral Surgicals Limited Appellant


T. Rajani, J. - (1.)This petition is filed seeking for quash of the proceedings against the petitioners, who are Al to A5, in SC SPL No.32 of 2018 on the file of the court of III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
(2.)Heard Sri R.Raghunandan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
(3.)The complaint filed against the petitioners under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 1940 and the Rules, 1945 (for short, "the Act" and "the Rules" respectively), is with the following facts, in brief:
The complainant, who was appointed as Drugs Inspector, inspected Al Company-M/s.Parenteral Surgicals Limited, which had loan licence in Form 20A, valid upto 13.05.2014. A2 to A5 are the Board of Directors for manufacture of subjected drug along with other drugs manufactured by Al Company. All of them are responsible for the day to day activities of Al Company. During inspection, the complainant picked up seven types of drugs for testing/analysis by complying with the prescribed procedure. He sent the seized samples to the Government Analyst Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad and the report of the analysts, declaring the said drug as not of standard quality, stating that the sample does not meet LP. requirements in respect of description of the sample under parental preparation, was received on 31.05.2011. On 01.06.2011, the complainant addressed a letter to LW3, enclosing a copy of the analytical report. LW3 gave a reply on 04.06.2011 to LW1 submitting two stock transfer notes of the subject drug. The complainant addressed a letter dated 06.06.2011 under Sections 18A and 18B, along with a copy of analytical report in Form-13 dated 26.05.2011, enclosing one of the sealed sample portion of the subject drug and sent the same by registered post to Al company. On 12.07.2011, investigation was taken up by LW2. On 25.07.2011, LW2 addressed a letter to the superintendent of head post office, Vijayawada, for non-receipt of acknowledgment card. The receipt of the said notice copy, Form 13 and sample portion by A1 Company was confirmed by the reply of the superintendent of postal department. On 14.09.2011, LW2 inspected A1 Company and collected the required self attested documents and relevant information for the subject drug. On 18.06.2012, the complainant addressed a letter to Al Company requesting about any change in the constitution of Directors asking them to inform the same changes within seven days of the date of receipt of the letter, but no reply was received from Al Company. Considering that A1 to A5 violated Section 18(a)(1) of the Act, the complaint was laid seeking for punishment under Section 27(d) of the said Act.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.