AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Chahal, J.—Sunil Kumar Kataria who is a partner with M/s. Triko Pharmaceuticals, Rohtak, has come to this Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer that the complaint, Annexure P2 alongwith consequent proceedings now pending in case No. 729/2 of 1987 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak be quashed.
The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner are that on 4.9.1986, Shri K.K. Maheshwari, Drug Inspector, Rohtak along with Dr. D.P. Bansal, Chief Medical Officer visited the factory premises of the Triko Pharmaceuticals and took samples of various drugs and medicines which were being manufactured by the firm. The samples were sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh. Vide report, Annexure P1, the Government Analyst made the following report :
"1. Contents of Chlorpromazine HCI/tables are found to be less than the prescribed 1 p limits.
The preparation is pharmacopaelol but name of pharmacopaelol is not labelled on the strips, hence sample is also deemed to be misbranded."
After obtaining this report, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak and the Petitioner, on being summoned, made a request to the court that the sample be sent for re analysis to the Director, Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta. This prayer was allowed and the sample was sent for reanalysis. The Director, Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta, vide his report, Annexure P3 confirmed that the sample conformed to the standard prescribed under the Act and the Rules. He, however, added a note that on the carton the label was " Chlorpromaizine Tablets 1 P 100 mg " but this was not printed on the strips. On receipt of this report, the charge was amended and the petitioner was charged for offence under Section 17, 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.
Mr. Narinder Kumar, Advocate who appears for the State urges that the drugs being misbranded, the charge was correctly framed by the trial Court. This plea of the learned counsel is not acceptable. The manufacturer supplies the goods in carton and the carton carries the necessary description of the drugs contained. If the letters "IP" are not mentioned on the strips, the drugs cannot be described as misbranded or mislabelled. After the report of the Director, Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta, the samples had been found to be in conformity with the standard and no charge survived. I hereby accept the petition and quash the complaint, Annexure P2 and all consequent proceeding.