LexM/S. MEDICAMEN BIOTECH LTD. AND ANR. versus RUBINA BOSE, DRUG INSPECTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2008) 4 S.C.R. 936 M/S. MEDICAMEN BIOTECH LTD. AND ANR. v. RUBINA BOSE, DRUG INSPECTOR (Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2008) MARCH 13, 2008 [TARUN. CH.~TTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BED~, JJ~] Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - ss. 25(3) and 25(4) - Right under - Violation of - Drug sample - Testing of - : c . Procedure - Delayed filing of complaint - Drugs Inspector ·., collected samples of drug manufactured by Appellant and divided the samples into four equal parts - One part was sent to the Government Analyst for test/analysis - Government Analyst gave report declaring the drug as sub-standard - Appellant disputed accuracy of the report and twice requested .0 for a re-testing of the drug - Drugs Inspector filed complaint before Magistrate under s. 27 - Proceedings initiated on account of the complaint challenged - Prayer for quashing under s.482 CrPC - Rejection of, by High Court - Propriety of · 1 .- Held: Not proper - In spite of two communications from · E · Appellant that it intended to adduce evidence to controvert , the facts given in the report of Government Analyst, the fourth · sample with the Magistrate had not been sent for re-analysis . -Also, the complaint itself had been filed about a month before 'expiry of the shelf life of the drug - No reason as to why the F qomplaint could not have been filed earlier - Appellants had -been deprived of a valuable right under s.25(3) and 25(4) - Hence, proceedings against them liable to be quashed - Code of Criminal Procedure,. 1973 - s. 48f.. \ . .! . ·. G ·\The Drugs Inspector collected samples of the drug manufactured by Appellal'lt No.1 and divided the samples into four equal parts. One part was sent to ttie Government Ana.lyst for test/analysis. The Government Analyst gave report declaring the .drug as sub-standard. Appellant H 936 M/S. MEDICAMEN BIO. LTD: AND ANR. v. RUBINA 937 BOSE, DRUG INSPECTOR ~ disputed the accuracy of the report and requested for a A re-testing of the drug. However, the Drugs Inspector filed • 1 complaint before the Magistrate under s.27 of the Act. The proceedings initiated on account of the complaint were challenged before the High Court and prayer f9r quashing was made under s.482 of the Cr.P.C. This petition was B dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal,· the Court · . HELD:1.1. S.23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provides the procedure for taking of samples and sub- c section (4) thereof, as already mentioned above, provides that the sample shall be divided into four portions and be kept/disposed of in the manner laid therein including one sample to be produced before the Magistrate. S.25(3) specifies that unless 'a person, from whom a drug has D been seized for analysis or testing, controverts the .... co~rectness of the report submitted by the Government Analyst within 28 days in writing that he intends to adduce evidence to controvert the report of the Analyst, it would be deemed to be conclusive evidence of the quality of E the drug whereas sub-section (4) of Section 25 obliges the Magistrate on the request of the complainant or the accused or on in his own motion to send the fourth sample which has been disputed for fresh testing to the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory. [Paras 5, 6] [942-8, C; F ' -<I 943-E, F] =" I 1.2. The argument raised by the Respondent that the appellant had never expressed a desire to controvert the report of the Drug Analyst is not correct as is clear from the letter dated 28th August 2001 addressed to the G Assistant Djrector General, Government Medical Stores Depot. Concededly a copy of this letter was addressed to and received by the Drugs Inspector, Kolkata. [Paras 6, 7] [943-G, H; 944-A, D] 1.3. The appellant had not once but on at least two H 938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. A occasions and within 28 days of the receipt of the show "' cause notice clarified that it intended to adduce evidence to show that the test report of the Government Analyst was not correct. lnspite of two communications from the appellant that it intended to adduce evidence to controvert B the facts given in the report of the Government Analyst, the fourth sample with the Magistrate had not been sent for re-analysis. The appellants had been deprived of the right to have the fourth sample tested from the Central Drugs Laboratory. [Paras 8, 10] [944-G, H; 946-H; 947-A, B] c 1.4. Also, the r,om
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.