- (1.) The following are the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the appellant: The Complainant is the Drugs Inspector, Vellore I Range duly notified as an Inspector under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in page No: 118 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 19.03.1975 and is empowered to file this complaint under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The first accused is the Proprietrix of the medical shop by the name 'R. R. Pharmacy' situated at 86 A, Idasscuder Road, Vellore-4. The second accused is the husband of the first accused and is the person in charge of the shop as the power of attorney of the first accused. The medical shop R. R. Pharmacy, Vellore-4 have been issued with licences in Forms 20 and 21 bearing No: NAN/ 473/20 and NAN/473/21 dated 22.04.1993 and is authorised to do retail business of drugs as per the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945. On 18.11.1998, the Deputy Director of Drugs Control, Intelligence Wing, Office of the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai-6, Mr.K.Raghunathan has visited Vellore along with the Drugs Inspector, Intelligence Wing, Office of the Director of Drugs and Control, Chennai-6, Mr.M.M.Yousuf. The Deputy Director has directed the Complainant to accompany him and the Intelligence Wing Inspector for the inspection to be conducted at the accused medical shop. Accordingly the Complainant has inspected the accused medical shop, R.R.Pharmacy, Vellore-4, on 18.11.1998 at about 12 noon along with the Deputy Director Mr.K.Raghunathan and the Drugs Inspector Mr.M.M.Yousuf. During the inspection, the first accused was not available in the shop and the second accused was present, looking after the business. On inspection, the following 19 items of drugs were found stocked for sale in the storage racks of the shop, without supporting purchase invoices as required under Rule 65(4)(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945. 1. 3 x 1 Fortum 1 G, N651, July 98, June 2000, Glaxo India Ltd., Nashik. 2. 3 x 1 Fortum 1 G, N648, July 98, June 2000, Glaxo India Ltd., Nashik. 3.1x1 Fortum 1 G, N671, Sep 98, Aug 2000, Glaxo India Ltd., Nashik. 4. 1 Vial Rhesogam, B5027, Jan 97, Dec 99, Chemech Laboratories Ltd., Chennai. 5. 1 x 500 Mg Broadicilin, BDIM8028, Apr 98, Mar 2000, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Taloja. 6. 1 x 500 Mg Broadicilin, BDIM8053, July 98, June 2000, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Taloja. 7. 1 x 500 Mg Broadicilin, BDIM8031, Apr 98, Mar 2000, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Taloja. 8. 1 x 500 Mg Tienam, V4971, Apr 97, Apr 99, Merck & Co., Inc, West Point, U.S.A. 9. 2 x 750 Mg Zocef Injection, 7002, Sep 97, Aug 99, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Taloja. 10. 1 x 750 Mg Zocef Injection, 7002, June 97, May 99, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Taloja. 11. 1 x 750 Mg Zocef Injection, 6006, Nov 96, Oct 98, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Taloja. 12. 1 x 750 Mg Zocef Injection, 7008, Dec 97, Nov 99, Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Taloja. 13. 1 x 250 Mg Dobutrex, ZF7M37C, July 97, July 2000, Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd., New Delhi. 14. 1 x 750 Mg Supacef, N605, June 97, May 99, Glaxo India Ltd., Nashik. 15. 1 x 750 Mg Supacef, N596, May 97, Apr 99, Glaxo India Ltd., Nashik. 16. 1 x 1 Doz. Sea Tangle Tents Made in Norway. 17. 1 x 1 G Taxim Injection, TXIM8008, Jan 98, Dec 99, Indo Prophem Ltd., Daman. 18. 1 x 1 G Reflin, D02598, July 98, June 2000, Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Dewas. 19. 1 x 1 G Omnatax, 018033, July 98, June 2000, Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd., Mumbai." On Inquiry, the second accused has submitted that he does not have the purchase invoices for the above said 19 items. Hence under instructions from the Deputy Director, the Complainant has seized the said 19 items of drugs under a Mahazar and Form 16 dated 18.11.1998 in the presence of two independent witnesses Mr. C.Babjan and Mr.V.C.Rajha. The next day (19.11.1998), the Complainant has produced the seized drugs under a petition, before the Judicial Magistrate IV, Vellore-9 as required under Section 23 (6) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The C.P. No.583/98 has been assigned and the drugs were returned to the complainant with the condition that the same should be produced before the Hon'ble Court as and when required. "On 23.11.1998, the complainant has issued a show cause notice to the second accused calling for the explanation as to why action should not be taken against him for not having maintained the purchase invoices for the said 19 items of drugs. The second accused in his letter dated 23.11.1998 has stated that the firm do not have the purchase invoices for the said 19 items of drugs. He has stated further that they have purchased the items without the purchase invoices due to carelessness. Also he has stated that the first accused is the proprietrix of the shop and is his wife and has given him a power of attorney to do the business in the shop. He has enclosed a copy of the power along with his reply. On 8.12.1998, the Complainant has submitted a proposal to the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Dharmapuri with a direction to include the first accused also as one of the accused as per the opinion of the legal adviser of the office of the Director of Drugs Control. Chennai-6. A copy of the opinion of the legal adviser was also received along with the letter." "The complainant has resubmitted the proposal under the letter dated 23.08.1999, which was returned under letter dated 7.9.1999 by the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Dharmapuri. The proposal was resubmitted on 18.1.2000 to the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Vellore-9 and the same was returned on 19.1.2000. Hence finally, the Complainant has resubmitted the proposal on 2.2.2000 requesting for the sanction order to prosecute the first and second accused as directed. The sanction order dated 6.3.2000 was received on 29.3.2000 permitting the Complainant to prosecute the first and second accused. Hence it is submitted that the first and second accused have contravened the provisions of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule 65(4)(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 by not having maintained the purchase invoices for the said 19 items of drugs, which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. Hence it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to take this Complaint on file and dispose it of as per the law."
(2.) Charges were framed against both the accused under Sections 18(c) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the accused pleaded not guilty.
(3.) After the complainant's evidence was over, both the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating materials available against them and they denied their complicity. They have neither examined any witness nor marked any document.;