9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that- no prosecution in drugs and cosmetic act, 1940 to prosecute dealer for sale of spurious drug or drug of below standard quality without manufacturer being made co-accused. Impugned High Court order set aside. Trial judge to proceed as per law. - 920 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2002 - M.B. Shah and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ. [Order]. - Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard finally on merits. 3. The respondents herein were prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 345 of 1999 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Armoor (Andhra Pradesh) for alleged offences under Section 18(a)(vi), read with Sections 17-B(a), 18(b) and (c) punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elevant provisions of the Act on which the case of the prosecution is based. Section 8 defines the expression "standard of quality:' of drug to mean that it must comply with the standards set out in the Second Schedule of the Act. Section 17-B in its relevant part reads: "17-B. Spurious drugs. - For the purposes of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious,- (a) * * * (b) if it is an imitation of, or is a substitute for, another drug or resembles another drug in a manner likely to deceive or bears upon it or upon its label or container the name of another drug unless it is plainly and conspicuously marked so as to reveal its true character and its lack of identity with such other drug;" 10. Relevant part of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable diligence, that the drug contravened the provisions of the Act". The Division Bench went on further to hold "If the tablet in question has been found to contravene any provisions of the Act either the distributor or the manufacturer is liable but not the dealer when the dealer purchased the srid tablet from the valid distributor." 12. After perusing the impugned order of the learned Single Judge be fore by us we find that the same overlooks the clear provisions of the Act. 13. In proceedings for prosecuting the accused under the provisions of the Act the only defence available to the accused is as provided in Section 19(1) read with sub-section (3) of the said section. It reads thus "19. Pleas. - (1) Save as hereinafter pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... metic in any way contravened the provisions of the Act". This defence plea, if at all available to the accused would be considered in accordance with sub-section (1) read with sub section (3) of Section 19 of the Act only after the prosecution has led its evidence to prove its case. There is no prohibition in any of the provisions of the Act that a dealer cannot be prosecuted for sale of spurious drug or drug of below-standard quality without the manufacturer being made a co-accused. Such a conclusion by the High Court is not borne out from the provisions of the Act as discussed above. 15. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 5-9-2001 of the High Court .and direct the Judicial Magistrate, F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
