M/s. Brawn Laboratories Ltd. - Petitioner @HASH State and Others

Tashi Rabstan, J. - Through the medium of present petition, filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking quashing-of the

proceedings initiated by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in File No.50, titled as, State through Drug Inspector v. Magnus Enterprises & anr.

The facts as revealed front the petition are that the Drug Inspector lifted certain samples of tablets from the Medical Officer Stores, Government

Medical College, Jammu, which were manufactured by the petitioner Company. It is averred that the sample of one of the tablets when sent to

Government Analyst, i.e., CFDL, Patoli, Jammu was declared to be not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940

(hereinafter, for short, the Act). Accordingly, on 26.05.2010 the State through Drug Inspector filed a complaint before the Court of Learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Jammu under Section 18(a) (i) read with Section 27 of tile Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 against the petitioner and M/s.

Magnus Enterprises. It is averred that the learned CJM initiated proceedings against the petitioner and M/ s. Magnus Enterprises and vide order

dated 14.09.2010 directed that the seized sample be sent to Director Central Laboratory/Calcutta along with draft of Rs.500/-. However, it is

averred that on 11.04.2011 it was intimated to the learned CJM by the Director Central Laboratory, Calcutta that though an amount of Rs.500/-

was received by it but the sample was not received. Hence, the petitioner has tiled the instant petition on 04.06.2014 seeking quashing of the

proceedings initiated before the learned CJM in the above-referred case.

The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that in terms of SRO 288 dated 28.07.1989 the concerned Drug Inspector was authorised to

make inspection of sale premises only within the Municipal Limits of Jammu Division. whereas he inspected the Medical Officer Stores of

Government Medical College, Jammu, which was not a sale premises, as such he acted without jurisdiction. Further, it is contended that in absence

of any finding from the Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta and in view of shelf life of the seized drug having been expired, the proceedings before

the learned CJM have been rendered invalid. Thus, it is contended that as the shelf life of the seized drug has been expired, so now no question

arises for compliance of Section 25 of the Act which provides for conducting of the test of seized drug by the Government Analysts.

Objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1. It is averred that as per the report of Government Analyst, CFDL, Jammu, the drug-

in-question manufactured by the petitioner-Company has been declared not of standard quality, which is an offence under the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act. Further, it is aver that the area from where the sample was falls under the jurisdiction of answering respondent.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the file.

The petitioner has questioned the initiation of proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on two counts; first, the Drug

Inspector had acted without jurisdiction, because in terms of SRO 288 dated 28.07.1989 he was authorised to make inspection of sale premises

only within the Municipal Limits of Jammu Division, whereas he inspected the Medical Officer Stores of Government Medical College, Jammu,

which is not a ale premises; and, second, the respondents have not conducted the test of the seized drug in terms Section 25 of the Act.

So far as first contention is concerned. I would like to quote relevant portion of Rule it. Schedule ‘K’ of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules

1945 hereunder:

5A. Drugs supplied by a hospital or The provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the rules

dispensary maintained or supported by thereunder which require them to be covered by a sale

Government or local body licence subject to the following conditions:-

’(1) the dispensing are supply of drugs shall be

carried out by or unit the supervision of a qualified

person;

(2) the premises where drugs are supplied stocked shall

be opens inspection by an Inspector appointed under

Ar Drugs and Cosmetics Act who can, if necessary

samples for test.

Therefore, in view of the above-referred provision, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the Drug Inspector was not authorised to

make inspection and take samples of the Drugs at Medical Officer Stores of Government Medical College, Jammu, is not tenable and the same is

rejected.

As regards the second contention of tied counsel for petitioner that the responds have not conducted the test of the seized drug in terms of

Section 25 of the Act, I am of the view that it would be in the fitness of things the petitioner agitates this contention before the learned trial Court

which is already seized of the matter. Otherwise too, the inherent powers under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. ought to have been exercised by the High

Court and the proceedings ought to have been quashed only in such cases where the complaints do not constitute any offence or the same are

frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected Cr.M.A(s), if any.