- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. This petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C, has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 98 of 1977 (State v. J. K. Chopra and Others') under Section 18/27, Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 120-B, I. P. C.
(2.) THE Inspector of Drugs filed a criminal complaint against J. K. Chopra and eleven others in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur for their prosecution under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 120-B, I. P. C. THE applicant Smt. Renu Chopra is daughter of Sri J. K. Chopra and is arrayed as accused No. 9 in the complaint. THE material allegations in the complaint are that a Firm M/s Spa Pharma of which J. K. Chopra and his wife Smt. Gargi Chopra were partners was granted a licence on 31-5-1965 to manufacture Drugs. Smt. Gargi Chopra (accused) also worked as Analytical Chemist in the said Firm. On 14-9-1971 accused J. K. Chopra moved an application before the Assistant Controller of Drugs U. P. for granting approval to Smt. Gargi Chopra as manufacturing chemist. About 50 drugs manufactured by the Firm M/s Spa Pharma were reported to be not of prescribed standard. Apprehending action, the partners of the Firm M/s Spa Pharma sold the same to Sri Gajanan Goyal on 17-7-1973. J. K. Chopra and V. K. Seth constituted another Firm in the name and style of M/s B. Jay Pharma in 1972 and an application was given on 30-3-1973 for grant of licence to manufacture drugs. THE accused Niranjan Prasad, Assistant Controller of Drugs and accused R. K. Arora Inspector of Drugs knowing fully well that accused J. K. Chopra was earlier running the Firm Spa Pharma, the drugs manufactured by which had been found to be substandard, made a recom mendation for grant of licence to the Firm B. Jay Pharma. Manufacturing licence was in fact granted in favour of the aforesaid Firm on 11-5-1973 and Smt. Gargi Chopra was shown as manufacturing chemist in the licence. Another firm by the name of M/s B. Jay Pharma (Sales) was also constituted at Kanpur of which the applicant Renu Chopra daughter of J. K. Chopra aforesaid and Smt. Pushpa Seth wife of B. K. Seth were partners. This Firm started selling drugs manufactured by M/s B. Jay Pharma. THE case of the prosecution further is that Firm M/s B. Jay (Sales) sold Dextrose Injections and some other drugs manufactured by the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma to L. L. R. Hospital Kanpur on 9-4-1974. THEse drugs were given to the patients in the Hospital and several of them died between 11-4-1974 to 14-4-74. Sample of the drugs sold by the Firm B. J. Pharma (Sales) was collected from the Hospital and was sent for analysis to Government Analyst Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta who reported the same to be adulterated. THEreafter, a com plaint was filed against twelve persons in cluding Dr. Niranjan Prasad the then Assis tant Controller of Drugs U. P. and Sri R. K. Arora the then Inspector of Drugs Kanpur. It is well-settled that proceedings of a criminal case can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P. C. if the allegations made in the F. I. R. or the com plaint do not disclose commission of an offence. At this stage the court is not con cerned with the correctness of the allega tions made and has to proceed on the basis that the same are correct. The allegations in the complaint show that the applicant was a partner of the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma (Sales) which sold some drugs manufac tured by the Firms M/s B. Jay Pharma to L. L. R. Hospital, Kanpur on 9-4-1974 and that number of patients died on account of the fact that they were administering the aforesaid drugs. The sample of the drugs sold by the applicant's Firm to the Hospital was sent for analysis to the Government Analysts, Central Drugs Laboratory, Cal cutta and a portion of his report is reproduced below: Injection of Dextrose I. P. B. No. 636- Sub standard/presence of fibre like material visible with unaided eye in ordinary day light. Pyregens present, phenol present. Water for Injection-Sub stand ard/presence of glass particles visible with unaided eye in ordinary day light. Normal Saline Solution for Injec tion-Sub standard/presence of glass par ticles. Visible with unaided eye in ordinary day light/phenol present. Government Analyst also reported that bottles contained phenol, the use of which is prohibited in Indian Pharma copoeia and British Pharmacopoeia, Phenol is protoslasmia poison and is toxic to all types of cells and is known to cause haemolysis of human blood.
(3.) SECTION 17-A of Drugs and Cos metics Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) lays down when a drug shall be deemed to be adulterated. If a drug consists in whole or in part of any filthy putrid or decomposed substance or if it has been prepared, packed or stored under insanitary conditions where by it may have been contaminated with filth or whereby it may have been rendered in jurious to health, it will be adulterated within the meaning of sub-section (a) or (b) as the case may be. Similarly if a drug con tains any harmful or toxic substance which may render it injurious to health it will be adulterated within the meaning of sub-sec tion (e ). According to the report of the analyst the drugs supplied by the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma (Sales) to the Hospital were of the type enumerated in sub-section (a), sub- section (b) and sub-section (e) and were, therefore, adulterated within the meaning of SECTION 17-A of the Act. SECTION 27 provides that whoever sells any drug deemed to be adulterated under SECTION 17-A, shall be liable to be punished with im prisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees. The allega tions in the complaint show that the ap plicant is a partner of the Firm which sold adulterated drugs to the Hospital. There fore, the case of the applicant clearly comes within the purview of SECTION 27 of the Act and the proceedings instituted against her cannot be quashed. Learned counsel has next submitted that the proceedings against some co-ac cused of the same complaint have already been quashed by the High Court and there fore, the proceedings against the applicant also deserved to be quashed. Copies of judg ments given by this Court in three cases have been filed as Annexures 6, 7 and 8 to the "petition. So far as the cases of Dr. Niranjan Prasad and R. K. Arora, being Crl. Misc. Application Nos. 3707 of 1977 and 4543 of 1979, are concerned, they stand on entirely different footing. R. K. Arora was the In spector of Drugs and Sri Niranjan Prasad was posted as Assistant Controller of Drugs U. P. with Headquarter at Lucknow in the year 1970 and thereafter he was transferred as Joint Director of Medical and Health. These two persons are Government ser vants and they had no connection what soever either with the Firm which manufac tured the drugs or with the Firm which sold the same to the Hospital. The only allega tions made against them in the complaint is that they made a recommendation for grant of a licence for manufacturing drugs in favour of the Firm M/s B. Jay Pharma al though they know that some partners of this Firm were earlier running another Firm by the name of M/s Spa Pharma and some of the drugs manufactured by this Firm had been reported to be sub-standard. There is no dispute that these two persons had played no part either in manufacture or in the sale of the Drugs to the Hospital and therefore, their cases are entirely distin guishable from that of the applicant.;