STATE OF HARYANA versus BRIJ LAL MITTAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 104 · Decided: 30-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
BRIJ LAL MITTAL AND ORS. 
APRIL 30, 1998 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 194!): Sections 17.17-A, 18-A, 25(3), (4) and 
27. 
C 
Drug adulteration-Report of Government Analyst-Right to 
controvert-Necessary condition for-Compliance with requirement of section 
25(3)-Sodium Chlori.de Injections-Adulteration of-Analyst Report-
Notijied to manufacturer company-Failure of company to notifY that it 
intended to adduce evidence to controvert report within twenty eight days-
D Proceedings against Directors of Company-Directors' petition to High Court 
under section 482 Cr. P. C.-Quashing of proceedings by High Court-Ground 
that they were deprived of right to get drugs tested by Central Drugs 
Laboratory-Appeal by State-Held : Directors having failed to comply with 
section 25(3) benefits of section 25(4) was not available to them-Quashing 
of order against directors upheld on different ground i.e. failure to prove that 
E they were Jncharge of Company and responsible for conduct of business. 
F 
Section 34(1)-0ffences by Company-Prosecution of Directors-
Necessary conditions for. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482. 
Company-Directors-Prosecution for adulteration of drugs-Quashing 
of proceedings-Validity of 
Two injections of Sodium Chloride purchased by the District Drugs 
Inspector, H:Ssar from Mis Naresh Medical Agencies were found adultered, 
G within the meaning of sections 17 and 17-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics 
Act, 1940 by the Government Analyst Under section 18-A the seller disclosed 
that Mis Ajay Medical Agencies, Hissar and National Distributors, Sirsa 
were the distributors of the drugs and Mis Mitson Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. 
were the manufacturers. The Inspector apprised those firms and the company 
of his having purchased the drugs and the report of the Analyst. Inspite of 
H it the manufacturers failed to notify that they intended to adduce evidence in 
104 
STATE OF HARYANA v. B.L. MITT AL [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 
105 
controversion of the Government Analyst report within twenty eight days as A 
required under section 25(3). The Inspector then filed a complaint against 
the firms/company and their partners/Directors in the Court of Chief Judicial 
Magistrate, Hissar alleging commission of offence under section 27 of the 
Act. The th tee directors of the manufacturers' company (the respondents) 
filed a petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal B 
Procedure, 1973~ The High Court quashed the proceedings against the 
respondents on the ground that the prosecution was launched after the shelf 
life of the drugs had expired in the month of July, 1991 and as a consequence 
thereof they were deprived of their right under section 25(4) of the Act to 
get the drugs tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory. State oLHaryana 
preferred appeal before this Court. 
C 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. The reasoning of the High Court for quashing the prosecution 
against the three respondents is not sustainable. It did not properly consider 
the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 25 nor did it appear to have D 
perused the complaint and the documents annexed thereto before concluding 
that the respondents were deprived of their right under sub-section (4). 
Unless requirement of sub-section (3) is complied with by the person 
concerned he cannot avail of this right under sub-section (4). [109-B-A) 
2. From a bare perusal of sub-section (3) it is manifest that the report E 
of the Government Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and 
such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample 
was taken or the person whose name, address or other particulars have been 
disclosed under Section ISA has within 28 days of the receipt of the report 
notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceeding F 
in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in 
coutroversion of the report. Under sub-section (4) the right to get the sample 
tested by Central Government Laboratory (so as to make its report override 
the report of then Analyst) through the Court accrues to a person accused 
in the case only if he had earlier notified in accordance with sub-section (3) G 
his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the report of the 
Government Analyst. Consequent upon respondents' failure to notify the 
Inspector within 28 days of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.