AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Mahmood Alam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The petitioner has challenged the proceedings of the Court below on the ground that there is no complaint for illegal manufacturing of drugs and cosmetics, which is prohibited under section 18 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as the Hindustan Laboratories, Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow having a valid licence to sell and manufacture drugs. It is further stated that once it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant Firm was illegally manufacturing the adulterated drugs and cosmetics, which is prohibited under section 27 of the Act, there is no question to take cognizance for violation of any provision of the Act. The applicant also claims herself as an employee of the Hindustan Laboratories, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow.
On the other hand on the basis of instructions learned Additional Government Advocate informs that the petitioner herself issued samples for testing on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Laboratories, which has been tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata and testing report indicates the remarks as under:
"The sample does not conform to claim with respect to "Assay" i.e. "Content of Vitamin Bl".
The Director of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata expressed his opinion that the sample is not of standard quality as defined under the Drugs Act, 1940 and Rules, thus in light of the aforesaid report it is apparent that the petitioner has clearly violated the provisions of the Act. Therefore, I do not find error in the proceedings of the Court below.
The petition is dismissed.