9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll, stock and distribute pharmaceutical specialities in wholesale as per licence granted to the firm in Form Nos. 20-B and 21-B. The appellant claims to have purchased 52,980 vials of OXETETRACYCLINE I.P. of 10 ML said to have been manufactured by M/s. Cadence Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Indore (M.P.) with Batch No. 9309 from M/s. Vimal Formulations Pvt. Ltd, Adyar, Madras-20. Similarly, the Appellant also claims to have purchased 7,522 Ampoules of Adernaline I.P. Batch No. VE 863 said to have been manufactured and sold by Vimal Formulations, Adyar, Madras under their invoice dated 4-5-1993. It is the further claim of the appellant that he had acquired both the above drugs from duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof and has maintained accurate records for the purpose. He claims to have ascertained the nature, substance and standard of quality of the drugs in question before purchasing the same. Admittedly, the appellant has sold those drugs mostly to the Government Hospitals and other licensed dealers under his cash credit bills and was said to have maintained appropriate records in this behalf. 2. During September, 1994, the appellant was said to have been served w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressing any view on merits to avoid any possible prejudice to the case of the appellant before the first respondent and also on account of the fact that it was at a pre-mature stage that the appellant had approached this Court. Aggrieved, the above appeals have been filed. 5. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Drugs Inspector namely, the second respondent had no jurisdiction to issue the notice or initiate the prosecution since the appellant is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the first respondent or the 2nd respondent and consequently was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the first or the second respondent. The learned counsel also argued that a writ is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Criminal Court proceedings even at this stage and that the provision contained in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not an effective alternative remedy, in as much as, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, a petition can be filed for quashing a criminal complaint either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sub-section (3) of Section 32 provides that nothing contained in the Chapter shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against the Chapter. Section 32A enables the Court concerned if at any time during the trial of any offence alleged to have been committed by any person not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof and the Court is also satisfied on the evidence adduced before it, that such manufacturer or agent also concerned in that offence notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure to proceed against such person as though a prosecution......... instituted against him under Section 32. Rule 51 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. 1945 enumerates the duties of Inspectors of premises licensed for sale and also empowers them to institute prosecution in respect of breaches of Acts and Rules made thereunder. Rule 85 of the Rules relates to the cancellation and suspension of licences. 7. We may now advert to some of the decisions relied upon before us. The decision in A.I.R. 1982 SC 82 (V. Vellaswamy v. I.G. of Police, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e citizens from being exposed to vexatious prosecutions and to ensure that no unnecessary harassment is caused. Such a measure devised even administratively in order to protect citizens cannot be made a grievance in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India. 10. In (1994) 2 S.C.C. 420 (Santhosh Dev v. Archana Guha), the Apex Court has held that quashing of criminal proceedings by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for if at all only in case of grave illegality and the Superior Court should not interfere normally on any and every irregularity or infraction of a procedural provision. It was observed also therein that interference by superior Courts at the interlocutory stages tends to defeat the ends of justice. 11. In (1994) 2 S.C.C. 277 (Union of India v. B.R. Bajaj), the Apex Court has also cautioned the High Courts from interfering even invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the initial stages of Criminal Proceedings. It was held in 1995 (I) Crimes, 566 (State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal) by the Apex Court that the power to quash the First Information Repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent, stocked or kept either for sale or exhibited or offered for sale or distribution, which was supplied by the appellant, and was found to be a offending drug. Therefore, the second respondent was well within his power and jurisdiction to launch prosecution. In view of the above, the reliance placed upon paragraph 144 of the decision in Bhajan Lal's case supra will be of no assistance to the appellant. If there are extenuating circumstances as claimed by the appellant, such circumstances are matters for proof by way of evidence during the course of trial and cannot be taken up for consideration in proceedings. under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, we do not see any prima facie lack or want of jurisdiction in the second respondent to initiate the prosecution. 14. For all the reasons stated above we do not see any merit in the above appeals. These appeals, therefore, fail and shall stand dismissed. We are leaving open all the contentions of the parties on either side to be appropriately decided in the pending proceedings before the first respondent except the one relating to the competence or jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to launch the pros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
