VENTRI BIOLOGICAL UNIT OF V H P L Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek to quash the proceedings pending against them in C.C. No. 466 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Namakkal. In such case, the petitioners are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for alleged contravention of Section 18(c) read with Rule 66(17) and 18(c) read with Rule 65(5)(l)(e) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

(2.) THE accusations made as against the petitioners are as follows: 1. Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(17) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1945 for having stocked the veterinary vaccines in ordinary room temperature and thus violating the storage condition of the label. Since as per the monograph of Vetenary vaccine as per page 131 of B.P(Vet), it was stated as "store protected from light at a temperature 5+-3'C. THE vaccine Infectious Bursal Disease Vaccine Inactivated is a vaccine as per B.P.(Vet). THE other two vaccines also fall under these general storage condition for vaccine. THE label also specify the same; and 2. Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(5)(1)(e) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1945 for not maintaining the carbon copy of the bill with the signature of the competent person.

(3.) LEARNED Government advocate (Crl.Side) on the other hand, would submit that prosecution has been launched since the accused had stocked the vaccines in ordinary room temperature violating the storage condition of the label of the drug, which was punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and for not maintaining the carbon copy of the bill with signature of the competent person, again punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. Sanction has been accorded specifically in respect of such offences and the aspect of pendency of analysis report in the case really was not material for the grant of sanction. Non compliance with Section 25(2) was immaterial as the analysis report was not one that called for any challenge by the petitioners. The other contention that drugs held by the accused were not for the purpose of sale would be one which would have to be raised at the trial. On a perusal of the complaint and other documents, the lower Court found it appropriate to take cognizance and this Court would not interfere at this stage.