9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 529X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... secution against the three respondents on a different ground. - CRL.A. 529 OF 1998 - - - Dated:- 30-4-1998 - M.K. MUKHERJEE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ. JUDGMENT Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parts. 2. On August 7, 1990 the District Drugs Inspector, Hisar (Haryana) visited the premise of M/s. Naresh Medical Agencies, (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm'), purchased two samples of sodium chloride injections (hereinafter referred to as the 'drugs') and sent portions of each of those samples to the Government Analyst for analysis. The Analyst submitted his reports on September 10 and 11, 1990 to the effect that both the samples were not of standard quality and were misbranded and adulte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the drugs had expired in the month of July, 1991 and as a consequence thereof they were deprived of their right under Section 25(4) of the Act to get the drugs tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory. Hence this appeal at the Instance of the State of Haryana. 4. At the outset, it will be apposite to extract Section 25 of the Act. It reads as under:- REPORT OF GOVERNMENT ANALYSTS: (1) The Government Analyst to whom a sample of any drug or cosmetic has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (4) of Section 23, shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form. (2) The Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Drugs Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complaint or accused as the Court shall direct. 5. From a bare perusal of sub-section (3) it is manifest that the report of the Government Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken or the person whose name, address or other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18A ( in this case the manufacturers) has within 28 days of the receipt of the report notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceeding in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uest the Court to call for the sample and send it for analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory. By the time the petitioners were summoned, the shelf life had expired. In this process the petitioners (the respondents before us) lost their right to get the sample re-analysed from the Central Drugs Laboratory. 'The petitioners' counsel rightly alleges that a valuable right has lost and this caused prejudice to the petitioners. 7. At the risk of petition, we wish to emphasis that the right to get the sample examined by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the Court before which the prosecution is launched arises only after the person concerned notifies in writing the Inspector or the Court concerned (here the latter clause did not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... get the sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory through the Court concerned stoo extinguished but the report of the Government Analyst also became conclusive evidence under sub-section (3). The delay in filling the complaint till the expiry of the shelf life of the drugs could not, therefore, have been made a ground by the High Court to quash the prosecution. It will not be out of place to mention that the manufacturers' right under sub-section (3) expired four months before the expiry of the shelf life of the drugs. In view of the above discussion, the reasoning of the High Court for quashing the prosecution against the three respondents cannot at all be sustained. 8. Nonetheless, we find that the impugned judgment of the High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement that the respondents were directors of the manufacturers, there is no other allegation to indicate, even prima facie, that they were in-charge of the company and also responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. 9. In Delhi Municipality vs. Ram Kishan [(1983) 1 S.C.C.1] while dealing with the applicability of Section 17(1) of the Prevention of the Food Adulteration Act, 1954, which is in pari materia with Section 34(1) of the Act, on similar facts, this Court observed as under: So far as the Manager is concerned, we are satisfied that from the very nature of his duties it can be safely inferred that he would undoubtedly be vicariously liable for the offence, Various liability being and incident of an offence und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
