3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI{ARWAI)
DATED THIS THE 1 1"' DAY OF DECEMBER.
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE
CRLIMINAL PETITION nfo. :§6sj3/20059:"
BETWEEN:
I .
" E. §\jfAGi«:1\zDRA NAIK &
. "ITARKAN NA_Dg'j\§ 58 1 320.
M/S. SHIVANI LAB'O.RATGRIE3L§,j' ._
NO. 57*; B, sH1RALz,1,%"m_58_13,54 '
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT".
sANJA'{E.c:, RE'€mNKAR, _
S/.0. (_:-.IxNA1:7,¢:T1'vR£;vA-M-
3. RAJENDRA
S /O. MANOHAR ANVEKAR.
KAMAT COMPOUND, ' "
MAVINKATTA.
EENORE VILLAGE.
BHATKAL TALUKA';' I
UTTARAKANNADA D ISTI{IC"i'; ;
4. RS. RAIKAR.._ '
CHEMIS1', I
S.P. COE\/i_PO'I;JND,.v
NHM I;-7, _
U'm'ARAI{ANAIAD';I; I)I'STI2I'C'*I*_
RESPONDENTS
_ T V (COMMON)
{I3Y'SARI'. P.H;vv.OOfI*Iflii'I.I§IjI. H.C.G.P. FOR R-1]
(R-2 «S: E~4'vI\IO'IfICIa; 'OISI>EI\ISEO;
CR_L.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C BY THE
'--..AO.VO.CATE~II%=OIz THE I>ETITIOI\IER PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROI:E'EI3'I'AI:vOSC".I'-IN C.C. NO. 443/2006 ON THE FILE OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS. III COURT. HUBLI, SO
FAR -AS PETTIIIONER IS CONCERNEO AND TO PASS SUCH
',OT'IIEI<;O.I2IjEIz OR ORDERS AS THIS E~ION'BLE COURT
FIT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
- 'v.._fIfi';»IIS PEITITON IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
THE COURT MADE TH E FOLLOWING:
T
E
ORDER
The 15* petitioner is a licensee to.~-m;in_ui’aet:2.:reV”ab7-
drug/medieine by name FRATOUCHZ1
sulphane. an ointment or gcream V’ppr’epare(j”‘bAfor exu§.err1a_1″‘e,
application. which is a drug Ignrstxant to
the license the petittionvervies The
medicine/drug, which the petitioners
was got examinethby per AnneXure–A
did. 02/02/€i4逧i;:5″‘.e_»i”t”31-. Vt’t’:13e”‘other two batches the
petit.ior1¢g~é”lietttévgtieofiegpg-ojeineed aiu_HCert4ific:at.e to that effect given
by the come true the respondent. the
Drug Inspe(‘.to::._ who ‘§_121s=._go~i”Vthe power under Section 23 of The
‘VL)1*ug’:L_?;:nc1._eCovsnaetiesv~Ae1′., 1940 has seized the said drug and
.V’–.io:”veej1=ded..4tttto» GOV€I’I1I11€’.I11. AI1a1ysEi under Sec. 25(3) of the
Aei’.. °Z’}«”1ez’eeIiV3t’tjfa’..e:’21 report has been received by the petitioners.
[which”v.zaVe;,.ana1ysed and signed on behalf of the Government
and also Director of Central Drug Laboratory. The
‘««T.’;)<~:t'I:t'.ione1*s have challenged the same on the ground that.
"~,tn"1oer See. 25(3) Drug ix1spe?£o1' has to send one portion of the
seized item to the Government Analyst. but there is no
provision under Sec. 25(3) to forward the same to t.I"i~e_C"C.ei1tral
Drug Laboratory. Though the lnspec:tor has
Government Analyst. it has been anya»lysed–"by"'-thel"Di'rect.or.V
Central Drug Laboratory. which isV'eont'ra1._r:y "mid
(4) of the Drug and Cosmetics Act__,_ 1940-… it is the tjon_tjen_tion
the petitioners that the right.,Cl""-ylhieh gystilalrlle to the
rnanufacturer to prefer "c3.}I.:_1:)¢i'£§'tl.l'.l'(;"'F_V'l,l'.1"t3.'SECOIICI opinion is
being deprived. _S_eCondly…,:.th.e't:lrt;g.'l.l'Wh'i'eit1'lwas sent to the
Government. for. refiort. étfterthe expiry date of the
drug. bésV1tf%.yile;lw yre-qt"i'ivr_es be interfered by this Court
under Sec. c)1"lCr.'Ei'..AC.. it C
2. In s1_.1p’po1ft._oi’-._hi~:§ submissiorl the learned Counsel
._places*re_l.ieti*i.g:e onllllaij-‘-sdgmezat reported in AIR 2008 SC 1939
‘i.f1»(i’éCt.tC0.mr:l;:li’i*–.Biotech Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rubina Bose. Drug
Inspelc-{or}.lxylhjereiii the t»ion’i:>le Supreme Court has held that ~
‘vVObf.’Ciii’lii?(]l£1’t report” zmoler Section 25(4). which. deprives the right’
fofal [56-..’.{‘SOI’t to pre_j’er” an appealfor second optmon.
f
3. Under Sec. 25(1) the Drug inspector has t.()w~.s_er1d’~V.one
unit of the seized drug to the Magistrate and after
report” from the Drug Analyst t.her1_ttnder Fro1~::}§é¢L’:1 issued”.
under Rule 3 of the 1945 Drug Rules, it to’:;he
Magistrate. in the instant caste-.,_ it has, not beerr_:s.eynt by theft?
Magistrate to the Director. Centra1_bDrVug L’aborat’ory. Hence.
the said action also vio!.ates the1-por0′.Ii’s.iont._ Hence, the case
which is pending in the CAQL1vi”i”‘«bI’:’lVt)v«/if is’.’r’ecV1t’iire’d to be interfered
by setting aside’Vthejy.ientir”c pi’oc’eedi:1_§g”s’,” ‘
‘learned’7Cvo’.Iernnienl.. Pfllfleader has filed statement of
objectionsuthat unde’r:_iSeb(h’.~~éffiii 1:} Drug Inspector has to send the
sarnp1e_s_ for a”repVo17ii_.j~toA’*thé’: Government Analyst and in the
x”«–it1st.a’,1__it’* Gover’n”n’ient Analyst who was promoted as a
o’f”Cer1tra1 Drug Laboratory has issued a report
in t.he’dcapaci:tLy5oi’ Government: Analyst as a Director. Hence,
“1_1″1€l’€ no cont1’avent’io11 of the provisions. §*”urt.t1er it is
v~st1bni”i’–t:ted that. CtOV€I’11II1(:’l’1’t of India has issued Notification in
!
T
(‘J
the year 1985 as per Ar1r1eXure–F-7 notifyirlg one pers(§’i1V’é;.§ a
Government. Analyst. The said person was appo’ii*1tedj.x’létt’er”on’g
he came to be promoted as [Director of C_errtré1’Er..’;L(2ibora:to’fy;lV’
Hence. there is no report made h1§éCGovle~3_*hn1ent’l
since he is promoted as a I)i1’ee_to-r._oi’Drt1g Labo.rator31… He 113:3. ‘
relied upon a judgment 1’_eport.ed___bjr».t:_lf1e._lIorrble.Suprerne Court
in AIR 1979 so 727 betti/eerr.LR%§1rr1 Misra v. State of
UP. wherein it 11.9.3 and Cosmetics
Act (23 of by Inspector direct’
to Director 13ermtsstbtlity.
5:’–.__’I’h_e– -the sample has already been
tested or Drug Laboratory clearly
i11cliea;t.e’s rhat, 2£;3.e;rtVl”r(>rr1 the mode prescribed in Sec. 25(4) the
V§e’~m_1;.V$le sent for Analyst of the Central Drug Laboratory.
Therfe under the Act. or the Rules barring the
I1″1spe.etorv’tI*orr1 Asendirag sample directly to the Director. Central
ll lI3rr.ags l;a;l3:t)1*2a1<31'3;. Section 25(l} and (4) clearly contemplates
e..«sr:1"1d_irrg of the sample directly t? the Central Drug Laboratory.
–~.l
which is elaborately discussed in para 7 and ll. of the
judgment. Hence. it is submitted that. in the iristarl.t..Vc’a,se.._the
Inspector has sent the sample to the Govern_rder1t§_’Ariai;{st_
Under Section 25(1) and the Government
issued report. who was also in Ch;c?£’I”g€:-.01? }Direcr,o’r- of VVC,’€1″}1;v.I7fll
Drugs I,aborato1’y. Hence thereis no co.r1t’raver11.~£’o’r;;
6. l have heard t1ie,.arugmem.s’.v–.
7. The case of pe1.iti.or:e1-‘sf’i”‘eq_oin§;;.”an interpretation,
which may notyvhegpossifihlegbilril:t11e°ci_’*irr1ihéel Ipetition. If it had
been rri’ade__ under-«vAi*t.ic’l<?i_V'2.2_6– tinder writ jurisdictiori. there
would ha\'feu been' 3, sc.o'pe' "l7o_1'"ihte1'p1'et.atior1. Hence under Sec.
25(3) and {4l)""w1ie1,h§tr 'e_1er~-e' is contravention it is not for this
Cotirtito decide. V I3.utv_the, purpose of the report. under Sec. 25(1)
il_–Qt"exar{li:1de'~,_tl1e contents of the drug. It is contemplated
llduriderVSec},.25("i.}:fthe Drug Inspector has forwarded the drug
belongs to. t'l1:ei'.,-petitioner to the Drug Analyst. Accordingly Drug
-v.__VA.na1yst.”1r1i_rnse1f has examined in the capacity of the Director of
Drug Laboratory. Unéer these circumstances. the
‘X.
prayer made by petitioner that the respondent has committed
an error in iorw211’di11g the drug sample all.er the expvil~ryi.date
and also as to whether the report. issued either 2’Efi[‘3}’of1f is
for him io make submission before the .1′./iagi’strate.«_ 2
judgment referred by ihe learned co»unselT Eo1’u’–1h’eApeiit.i’o.ne1:so is
noi. applicable in this case for Vtheé reasons”s’ta’red”aboVe.
Accordingly, Petition is liablezto be rejected.-I
Petitioner is 1’eserv–eo’ _lAib_eriIy all the materials
before the C()I.”‘:’l}”§{‘§€AlVTl- Co”L§i:;r*i–. ”
Sd/-
JUDGE
hfllll/’~* ‘