9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , punishable under Section 27(d) of the same Act. A perusal of the complaint discloses, that the first petitioner is the drug manufacturing firm at Bombay, while petitioners 2 and 3 are the Directors of the said firm. The fourth petitioner is the person in-charge of the conduct of the business of the first petitioner at Bombay, while the fifth petitioner is the person in charge of the Madras branch of the first petitioner, for the conduct of day-to-day business. On 18-11-1987, the then Drugs Inspector drew samples of Comoxyl dry syrup Amoxycillin, manufactured by the first petitioner, from the Medical Stores of the Southern Railway Headquarters Hospital, Aynavaram. On analysis, of the sample taken, by the Government Analyst (Drugs), Madras, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not liable to be proceeded against without a basic averment that one or other of them were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. 3. I have heard Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor on these contentions. He pointed out, that the sample seized contained a label which showed that the drug contained 125 mg. of Amoxycillin - the standard prescribed by British Pharmacopoeia. He would then refer to item 1 of the Second Schedule and invite the Court to hold that the standard to be complied with was, the formula or list of ingredients displayed, in the prescribed manner, on the label. If the label intended to show compliance according to the standard prescribed by British Pharmacopoeia, the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicates such prescription. It would have been of course better, if the prosecution had stated in the complaint, about the receipt of the reply to the show cause notice, its reaction and then the need to institute this prosecution. Not having done so will not be sufficient to throw away the prosecution. 5. Learned Counsel brought to my notice the judgment of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Gopilal Agarwal v. State of Orissa (AIR 1973 Orissa 15), to substantiate his contention, that the provisions of the Act and the rules prescribing penalty for infringement of standard quality of the drug cannot be enforced until standard quality is prescribed. The facts therein are easily distinguishable, and as I have already stated Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d responsible for the conduct of the business of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is a lady and the wife of the third petitioner. On the sole ground that no allegations have been made against petitioners 2 and 3, which would attract the ingredients of Section 34(1) of the Act, the pending prosecution in so far as it relates to them, will have to be quashed and shall accordingly stand quashed. As far as petitioners 1, 4 and 5 are concerned, the prosecution will have to be sustained. The first petitioner is the company itself, while the fourth petitioner is not only the Chairman, but also the person in charge of the conduct of the business of the first petitioner at Bombay, where the manufacturing unit is situated. As far as the fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
