In the case of M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.( S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1657/2021), Justice Birendra Kumar observed that Section 18A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 requires disclosure of name of manufacturer also and not only of the stockists and thus, he is entitled to receive one portion sample of seized drugs in terms of Section 23(4) of the Act. Section 23(4) r/e 23(3) provides that where an Inspector takes a sample of a drug for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall divide the sample into four portions and restore one portion of it to the person from whom he takes it, and shall retain the remainder.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Drug Inspector sent a notice to the petitioner stating that certain drugs, which were manufactured by petitioner, were seized from the Drug Store CHC, Kota, which were in turn procured from the District Drug Warehouse, Kota. As per the notice, the Drugs were not of standard quality. The petitioner filed an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate for supplying one portion of the sample of the Drugs out of the total four samples required to be prepared in view of the provisions of Section 23(3) of the Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate refused this prayer stating therein that one part of the sample was already provided to the District Drugs Warehouse Keeper, hence, there is substantial compliance of the law. The Sessions Judge confirmed the said order. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged both the orders in this petition filed under Article 226.
The High Court while allowing the petition and quashing the orders passed by both the lower courts, observed, “A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 23(4)(iii) above, would make it clear that one part of the sample shall be sent to the person, whose name and address has been disclosed under Section 18A as manufacturer. Section 18A of the Act requires disclosure of the name of manufacturer and not only of the Stockists.” The court directed that the petitioner be supplied with a part of the sample seized under the Act. It was held that both the courts below have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested leading to miscarriage of justice.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ANAGHA K BHARADWAJ