ORDER
Dr. Pratibha Upasani, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Application is directed against the order dated 14th August, 1992 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, VI Court, Mazgaon, Bombay allowing the application of discharge made by the respondent/original accused Pravin Premji Shah. The said accused was charged for offences under sections 18(c) read with Rule 65(3)(4), section 18(b) read with Rule 36, both punishable under section 27(d), and section 18-A punishable under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (“the Act”)
2. Few facts which are required to be stated are as follows :—
The complainant Mr. A.G. Udhoji who is a Drugs Inspector appointed under section 21 of the Act 1940 filed complaint against the accused for the above mentioned offences. Accused is a proprietor of M/s. Manish Medicals, Shop No. 14, Laxrnidas Wadi, 258, Sane Guruji Road, Bombay-400011 and the accused holds licences in Form No. 20 No. C-11/148, and 21 No. C-11/149 both dated 31st October, 1983 for selling drugs by way of retail by availing services of qualified persons.
3. The complaint states that on 2nd June, 1988 the complainant Mr. A.G. Udhoji visited the premises of M/s. Manish Medical situated at the address given above along with Drugs Inspector P.D. Chaudhari, the Drugs Inspector Greater Bombay and inspected the premises and found out that 14 blisted packing strips of 10 tablets each of different embossing mark of Aldomet were found to be stocked for sale in one rack along with other saleable drugs. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused could not produce purchase bill for the said stock of drugs. Hence, the said stock of drugs was prohibited by the Drugs Inspector under Form 15 dated 2nd June, 1988 for a period of 20 days. Thereafter, on 21st June, 1988, the complainant Mr. Udhoji again visited the premises of M/s. Manish Medicals at the same place, and again prohibited the said stock of drugs by issuing fresh prohibitory order and prohibited it for 20 days. Similarly, on 8th July, 1988, the complainant again visited the premises of accused. The use of the said Aldomet Tablets was again prohibited for a further period of 20 days on 8th July, 1988 by issuing a fresh prohibitory order. Thereafter, on 23rd July, 1988 as per the instructions of Joint Commissioner, Greater Bombay, the complainant again visited the premises of M/s. Manish Medicals, along with Mr. V.D. Patil and Mr. H.D. Salunkhe, Drugs Inspector, Greater Bombay and two panchas. In the presence of these panchas and the Drugs Inspector, the stock of Aldomet Tablets was seized under the panchanama and Form 16. The licence of the accused was suspended for a period of three days with effect from 21st September, 1988 to 23rd September, 1988 by the Licensing Authority. The Joint Commissioner, Greater Bombay made oral enquiries with M/s. Merind Ltd. Bombay, and it was learnt that the said manufacturer has stopped manufacturing of Aldomet Tablet since 23rd August, 1986, and hence, it appeared
that stock seized by the complainant on 23rd July, 1988 from the accused was unauthorisedly imported drug, as it did not bear manufacturers address, batch number etc. It was therefore, thus, charged in this case that on 2nd June, 1988, the accused stocked for sale Aldomet Tablets in his licensed premises without purchase bill and thus committed an offence under section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Rule 65(3)(4) punishable under section 27(d) of the Act. It is also charged that on 2nd June, 1988, the accused stocked for sale the said Aldomet Tablets which were unauthorisedly imported, and thus, committed offence under section 18(b) read with Rule 36 punishable under section 27(d) of the Act. It was also charged that the accused on or about 2nd June, 1988 at Greater Bombay stocked for sale the said Aldomet Tablets in his licensed premises and did not disclose the source of purchase and procurement to the complainant though he was asked to disclose the same and thereby committed offence under section 18-A punishable under section 28 of the Act.
4. Process was issued by the Magistrate against the accused for the above mentioned offences. The defence of the accused was that the drugs found in his premises were kept for the medicine use of his wife, as she was suffering from hyper-tension, and that, the said tablets were not kept for sale, and therefore, no offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was committed by him.
5. After hearing both the sides, and after perusing the complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, VI Court, Mazgaon, passed the impugned order and discharged the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has come in revision before this Court.
6. I have heard Mr. C.B. Dwivedi for respondent. This matter was kept for a long time, but the learned A.P.P. Mr. D.P. Adsule did not appear. I have also perused the entire record, and in my opinion, the order of the Magistrate appears to be a reasonable order. It appears that the prosecution has committed technical lapses like, not procuring the presence of independent witness, when the complainant Udhoji first found the said Aldomet Tablets in the premises of the accused, nor any entry was made by him in the inspection report i.e. Form No. 35 and Form No. 15.
7. I have gone through the judgment. It is a well reasoned order. In matters under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, technicalities are very important. There is a lapse on the part of the prosecution on this aspect. In view of the breach of technicalities, prosecution could not, prima facie, bring any material before the Court, and therefore, order of discharge passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be said to be erroneous. Hence the following order.
8. Criminal Revision Application No. 295 of 1992 is dismissed accordingly.
9. Application dismissed.