BHARAT H SHAH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the FIR, FIR No. 356/2009, registered at Police Station Ashok Nagar Jaipur for offences under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and 9B(E), 10 (BB/13A), 17B(E), 18A(1)/27, 18B and 22(3) Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.

(2.) Mr. Anil Upman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there is hardly any allegation against the petitioner in the FIR filed by the Drug Inspector. Secondly, in the raid, carried out at the premises of M/s Shree Vinayak Trading Company, a proprietorship firm, managed by the petitioner, no incriminating evidence, whatsoever, was found. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, no prima facie case is made out for offences under Sections 420, 120-B IPC and 9B(E), 10(BB/13A), 17B(E), 18A(1)/27, 18B and 22(3) Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Thirdly, despite the non-existence of a prima facie case, the Investigating Agency is bent upon Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the FIR as well as the documents submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) A bare perusal of the FIR reveals that according to the complainant, the Drug Inspector, complaints had been received from M/s V.H.B. Life Science Ltd. Mumbai that some of the medicines manufactured by it were being produced spuriously and were being sold in the market by M/s Madiline Pharma. Therefore, a raid was conducted on the shop of M/s Madiline Pharma. At the time of raid, Mr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, who is the partner and Pharmacist for M/s Madiline Pharma, was present. In his statement, he admits that the samples of medicine called lviglob Ex, 5gm/100 ML B. No. 200806010 were bought from M/s Shree Vinayak Trading Company, i.e. from the proprietary firm of the petitioner. Later on in the FIR, it is revealed that some of the drugs so discovered at M/s Madiline Pharma were spurious in nature.