IN THE HIGH covm” 012 KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCB AT DHARWAD
Datedfiris the 18″ Day afFebru.w33;20£;3’$:’,<'A j.
Befnre _' 4'
YHE HOZWBLE MR mszvcg 31:21, G é
cmnm' ' aIPet:.tw' ' as &1~"i'%§$§ }i,2r}'i26.'
C2L:22.{/06*. –. r 1
Betwéenz
MrPu1'ushot£amB Agrxalj" 3; 'V V' :
SE0 Bhagwandas Aga1wa§€;Manag1ng :I_)i:reci:3rf– V
W3 Ajanta Pharrria Ls/é” “” ” > T ‘
Rio Vishai :v:andir,”vs?**”-xzzaggr . « 3
6*’ Road, Kha’t;’E$i’tLm!3ai 4:iEs€”5~{}S’2.» Petitioner
(By Mfg Px~s;i:i1a’é,ss:a._ Aé§;;:%
And :
~ Q _s%;.:ze,¢éi”§<ama£a"ka. 11111 H ,
. V Est théinsiance of Drug Inspecter
' , "';'s.ssi:5€£Va5m _(L'.0nttol§cr, Hubli
-2 = ‘zs>::,?s53g.?::’~;P;Jziaz:n%’V’ aLtd
-(4:13 as }23g§#5m Wali Buiiding
{}pp:”‘I§SRTC Depot, Hesur, Hxzbli
‘ ” = :Smt V9″* Nééair
r _ C? &. GFA afR2
‘Rig 8 ‘1’ Divisienai Quartcrs
Bioek if 3/9, Hesur, Hubli Respcnéents
. , )::By Sri P H Getkhindi, GP fer 12.2; Manjuza
S Hiteznath, Adv. For R22 & R3)
;E(ak/
En (l’ri.P 759:’2{}86:
1
Elziis Ajania Pharma Ltd
GT8 9%? 123145, Wali Building
Opga: KSRTC Depot, Hosur
Hubli — by Sm: V N Nair
Smt V N nah”
C P & G?A of R2
Rio 3 T Eivisisnal Quartexs
Block # 3K9, Hesur, Hubii
(“By MKS Pramfla Assts., Adv.)
And:
1
Santa ofiéamataka ‘-
At the instange. sf i)rugs§_A§1xspéjc:j:ar
Asst. Drugs $oni§%01}e1*,}Eub§i ‘
E\»1rVPuru’s%1z>I1;£:m B”.i%{g’.¢xrve’:a1″‘
S!o’}3haigwand&sV Aga;:’w’a{ ” – .__
Man;a_ging_ Directerv “~. V -_
Mfs Ajzmta Pharma Ltd ,. ‘
Rio Visha} I\=iandir,’ 5* mac:
5%’=’1aa;d, Mumbai 400 052
{By S%9£”PV.§~§%’§et1§his;;ii, GP)
. I?eti’i;i§)1:@:?s
Rééspendents
H * ‘Fheéé JPetitions are fflfitd under 53.482, CLPC praying
V ‘ – to quash the :'{3.¢:fdé:ted 14.31.2095 in C5 21993905 befara the me,
Hubli. ” ” ‘
., ” ‘ Criminal Peiiiians coming 0:1 for Hezafing this day, the
C0311? _m§{‘.e the faliowingi
IQ
ORBE-‘R
Them two peiiiions have been flied by the accused Z L” ‘
the order of taking cogaizance in CC 2199f20{?5 C; -.
by order datad 14.11.2005 and £0 quash the c0n;ip1__af1’atT: A
MES Ajanta Phamxa }L.vtr.i,._.is 3 .:’eg:éf§re€i”-»§0m%§éhyvviiaviizg its
gegstered offica at Hubli. That {he manufacture
and saie of phmmacmfiticals ;’ét’£”‘it€d that (ms
filrushottam B § ;§§§§§§?”$na one ‘is’ N Nair
who is atrayafiaaééagseci fh%.:§Vg/Iggéisaaie is the {SPA Hoider
and in chairge ucéf at fhe branch at Huhli for in: 13′
pefitioner in C’1’1.’_ ?59;!2V{}'{3§$.;’V had appcainted a consignee
agcn,t {of the. 3:316 bf ._K3§natfika by name Meditrack who had valié
.1i;aas€ gfineument 1, regaréing letter ef apgoirxtment and me
v§ai}.i_d’-Tl.i§;s§nsé:”2:i _ééfiutfient 2 and 3 were in force fmm 24.2.2{.193 iii}
_ 23.2.2E¥G8. ficansing 311’£h£}i°i’€}f had issucé Fem: 21 Ct dated
gasaé.-.f:’he iimnse was issuczé in Fem 23, 213A, 293, 21, 2:23 and
_ «2EVB~»W§i$ renamed fitam 1.§.?£ii}3 ta 31.12.?,fiG7. Cepy <:rf1?'a:n:: 21 C is
% at rrfizaumeni é,
In the complaint filed under S200 CLPC by the Drugs inspee';er.,,!_:'l~.V_
it is alleged that there is violation of s.1s<: of the Drugs & Cgesmetgggjj . A'
Act, 1948. As per; the complaint, it is mentiened the: aCCl¥§'3{§..l.?,':'iQl{§'lil§3t
they pessessed license in Form 218 but, aceerdixizglte ihe j4)e'ti:ie'1:ers,'V «
they are having license in Form 21C; .4Withu5u§ gferifiealieéx, ltillez gags:
accused is said to have made a wrong stateinefit by we-. sight;
According to the complaint, visited for a
routine inspection, j1l'1i;*y.._ were 1:101 §pe§sessifigjV!ieenéje es eequired but
stating that they £ia3v*e'v,$te:eiieti_ the .Wifi1011t helding license
under 3.233, eomplgiifgil, t§'h:e'f11ed. f
Heard tl;£e".l5}ea;;ier.
‘V ” . ‘It is ‘Vilma: the aelellsed company is having its Branch at Huhli
and Stflftld certain drugs and also sold the
steekl eglé lithe drugs Without holding license in Form 2} B as
– _ the afiegeiion made. But, aceerding to the peiitioners, they had held
“a-lllieexlse in Fem: 21 B and by ever sight sue}: a statement was
V’ by the 2*” accused. Be that as it may. It is for the petitioners to
:=af3p£Qaeh the Magishaate ie produce the relevant lieensefdeeuments
which are required to be produced in eonformity with the Act 3216 Rules
\: ,-
1%,»
under Ehe Dr@ 85 Cosmetics Act, by fiiing an appiication seeking to
stop the prceceedings if convincing evicience is produced so as to s§tis. f§?*._
the rczquirement. On being satisfied if the Magisirate finds A’
no prima facie case, he can very W611 dismiss the _cnxnp1ain€j}=:1nd
discharga the accused at 9335 any other appr£%pria£;c ‘1 say ‘V _
the petitioners befcxre this Court carmot be “.~.’=.»f.:c§e:ptrcd iQ..”.;;1§ash’ thf:
compiaint filed at this stage. It is for ‘to maké “a=_f_i’d1*$§.’.ito figodfice
reievant material which are nec”{=;;~1sa1″3* (511:’$4u;K’.producfiVéh, it is for
the cencerned Magistrate is cansidét éaée _._r_:’1sf’ i:?!i{:j§<:£__i.ti0ners at the
thres.-ho§é and pass _a;:;=.§{)pzfiatei;Ac:rdt;1¥:3:'V.a3r ~¢V1AS'é"_:nVVp:d¢eéd in accnrdanae
wifh law aé. p€r__the n;i:£9<)'?«fi.<sV_i§§21s §f.fiic:.,C2'..PC.
A.<.-;:mjding§1'y,..bAoi}1 flue fifietitiens aw dismisseé.
sdi-*
1116.99