SHYAM LAL SINGHLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-43
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 18,2013

Shyam Lal Singhla Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. - (1.) TWO complaints were filed and one first information report was lodged against the applicant Shyam Lal Singhla and another. All the three prosecutions were instituted by Arvind Kumar Gupta, Drugs Inspector, Directorate of Medical and Health, Dehradun. Criminal Case No. 1159 of 2004 was instituted by the respondent No. 2 against the applicant and another in the Court of CJM, Rudraprayag, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(i) and 18(vi)/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 and violation of provisions of DICO 1995 read with Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act. Another criminal case No. 921 of 2004 was instituted by the same respondent against the same accused persons in respect of the selfsame offences in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. Both the criminal case pertain to the taking of sample of Ampirox Capsule. The batch No. of Ampirox Capsule in the criminal case registered in Rudraprayag was A x C - D03 and batch No. of Ampirox Capsule in the criminal case registered at Nainital was A x C - (J04). It is the allegation in both the complaints that the sample of Ampirox Capsule, purported to be manufactured by M/s. VIP Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, 14/5 Mathura Road, Faridabad -121003 was collected for test and analysis as per the provisions of the Act.
(2.) TEST report No. 15 -2/2002 -P & P/UC -60/336 dt. 05.05.2003 on Form 13 was sent by Govt. Analyst CDL Kolkata declaring the said drug of not of standard quality as the Capsule containing Hard Sticky Mass. Thus, in both the complaints filed in the Courts of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nainital and Rudraprayag, it was the allegation that the drugs manufactured by the accused -applicant, were of sub -standard quality. Learned counsel for the applicants prayed that the complaint pending in Rudraprayag be transferred to Nainital, as the parties, as well as the subject matter of both the complaints is the same. Both the complaints were held by the Drugs Inspector of Nainital. Since both the complaints were filed by Arvind Kumar Gupta, Inspector of Drugs, Nainital, against the same accused -applicant, in respect of the same drugs, although the batch numbers of the capsules were different, and the subject matter of both the complaints is the same, therefore, it will be expedient in the interest of justice, if both the complaint cases are directed to be decided by one Court. It is accordingly provided that the criminal case No. 1159 of 2004 (renumbered as criminal case No. 837 of 2006) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag is recalled from that Court and is made over to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital for disposal according to law, in the interest of justice. This Order is being passed by this Court in exercise of it's jurisdiction under Section 407(i)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 921 of 2007 and Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 552 of 2009 are accordingly disposed of. Interim stay granted by this Court in both the cases in this behalf are vacated. * * *
(3.) THE same Drugs Inspector Arvind Kumar Gupta lodged a first information report against the same complainant/applicant Shyam Lal Singhla on 28.12.2004, which was registered as case crime No. 819 of 2004, in respect of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The allegation against the accused -applicant, in a nutshell, is that the accused committed fraud by selling the drugs at an enhanced price. It was stated in the first information report that a sample of Ampirox Capsule was collected from CMSD Depot, which was under the control of CMO, Rudraprayag. The Ampirox Capsule was sent to Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, who found that the capsules/drugs were sub -standard. When the informant -Drugs Inspector enquired from the hospital authorities, the said authorities revealed that M/s. VIP Pharmaceuticals Private Limited placed an order dated 16.04.2001 before them showing that their firm was also included in the rate -contract. M/s. VIP Pharmaceuticals Ltd. also obtained payment by showing supply vouchers. The prescribed rate of Ampirox Capsule was Rs. 25.84/ - per ten capsules, but M/s. VIP Pharmaceuticals Private Limited supplied the same at the rate of Rs. 28/ - per ten capsules to the Government Hospital. The fraud was committed with the hospital authorities. Thus according to the first information report, M/s. VIP Pharmaceuticals committed forgery on three counts. Firstly, wrong and forged rate contract list, was produced. Secondly, on the basis of forged rate contract list supply order was procured and thirdly, the capsule was sold at an enhanced rate. The first information report also indicated that the Drugs Control Department has already instituted a criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag in this behalf.;


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