2012 (5) TMI 864 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the ISI prescription endorsement on the manufacturing license.
2. Whether the manufactured items are misbranded cosmetics.
3. Applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules.
4. Validity of the summoning order and prosecution.

Summary:

1. Legality of the ISI Prescription Endorsement on the Manufacturing License:
The petitioners challenged the summoning order dated 28.4.1994 u/s 482 Cr.P.C. They argued that the ISI prescription was not within the domain of the Drug Controller and was made applicable only from 27.10.1993. However, the court found that ISI specifications for testing toilet soaps were prevalent since 1978 (IS: 286-1978 for Breeze and IS: 2536-1978 for Lux). The Drug Controller's endorsement was valid, and the manufacturing had to conform to these standards. The court held that the endorsement was not without authority of law.

2. Whether the Manufactured Items are Misbranded Cosmetics:
The petitioners argued that their products were not misbranded cosmetics. Section 17C of the Act defines misbranded cosmetics as those with false or misleading labels. The court found that the fatty contents displayed on the wrappers did not match the actual contents (33.77% vs. 50% for Breeze and 50.82% vs. 60% for Lux). Hence, the products were misbranded as per the Act.

3. Applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules:
The petitioners contended that the ISI prescription was not applicable before 27.10.1993 and that the Drug Controller's act amounted to legislation. The court rejected this, stating that Rule 150A of the Rules required cosmetics to conform to IS specifications. The court also noted that the petitioners did not apply for retesting u/s 25(4) of the Act. The court upheld the applicability of the Act and Rules, emphasizing public safety and health.

4. Validity of the Summoning Order and Prosecution:
The court found no illegality in the summoning order. The petitioners' reliance on various case laws was not applicable as the facts differed. The court emphasized that branded companies have a responsibility to maintain public trust and that the petitioners' company had committed fraud by displaying incorrect fatty contents. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the prosecution to proceed.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the ISI prescription endorsement, the classification of the products as misbranded cosmetics, and the applicability of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules. The summoning order was found to be legal, and the prosecution was allowed to continue.