STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents faced trial before the learned trial Magistrate in criminal case No. 60/4 of 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for allegedly selling spurious 'CIPROMAC' (Ciprofloxacin Suspension) Batch No. 28898 manufactured by 'M/s Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.' (respondents No. 4 and 5). At the end of trial, respondents were acquitted vide judgment dated 31.5.2004 which has been challenged in the present appeal by the State. In short, the respondents were tried on the allegations that on 3.2.1999 PW1 Shri R.K. Chaudhary, Drug Inspector intercepted the premises of 'M/s Aman Medical Store' Shri Nand Kishore (respondent No. 1) and picked-up the sample by purchasing four cipromac vials 30 ml. each, the expiry date whereof was July, 1999. All the four viols were sealed as per procedure and marked as sample No. HMR/98/74.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 was duly informed by the Drug Inspector of the report of the analysis vide letter Ext. PW1/H. The copy of the analysis report was sent along with said letter. Thereafter respondent No. 1 produced the invoice No. 000130 dated 18.6.1998 Mark-1 pertaining to 'M/s Bharat Medical Store Pharmaceutical' its Distributors situated at Purana Bazar, Sundaarnager, H.P. (respondent No. 2 and 3).

(3.) Respondents No. 2 and 3 were given notice by the Drug Inspector for the contravention under Section 18 (a) (i) of the Act calling upon as to why legal action be not initiated against them. They were also informed that in case, they intend to adduce evidence in controversion of the analysis report Ext. PW1/1 they can notify in writing to him within 28 days of the receipt of the report of the Government analysis. In response respondents No. 2 and 3 enclosed five copies of invoice and correction-copy of batch number issued by respondents No. 4 and 5. Since item was registered in September, 1998, there was no stock with them accordingly they informed that they were writing to the retailers to whom the earlier stock was sold to return the same and the quantity received from the market would be sent to the Drug Inspector in due course.