IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1391 of 2004() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/05/2004 IN CRMP.4285/2004 IN ST.557/1997 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------- VARGHESE PAUL, PROPRIETOR AND MANUFACTURING CHEMIST, VETAS PHARMACEUTICALS, CAICO ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. REGIONAL DRUGS INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.6016/04 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1391/04 DISMISSED 20.6.2008 SD/- M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, J. ----------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No.1391 OF 2004 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.No.557/1997 before the Court of C.J.M., Thrissur. Prosecution was initiated against the petitioner herein at the instance of the second respondent under sections 18(a)(i) and 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 with the allegation that the product manufactured by the petitioner by name “Crystal Violet Paint BPC” did not confirm to the relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules thereunder and the test report from the Government Analyst disclosed that the sample of Crystal Violet Paint BPC, Batch No.78 is not of standard quality which is in violation of Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 2. PWs 1 to 11 were examined before the learned C.J.M. on the side of the complainant. The petitioner as the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. DW1, the Deputy Drugs Controller was also examined on the side of the accused/petitioner. A statement was also filed by the accused before the trial court. Thereafter the accused filed a petition before the learned C.J.M. as Crl.M.P.No.4285/04 with a prayer to issue summons to PW2 and also CRL.M.C.1391/04 -2- to a new witness, Smt.Sudha, the Chief Analyst to examine as the defence witnesses. That petition was dismissed by the learned C.J.M., Thrissur as per order dated 18.5.2004. The prayer in this petition is to quash that order of the learned C.J.M. dated 18.5.2004 in Crl.M.P.No.4285/04. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. On a reading of the petition filed by the petitioner before the learned C.J.M., Thrissur, it is evident that the prayer in the petition to examine PW2 as a witness on the side of the accused was to clarify the testimony given by him before the trial Judge regarding the facility in the Drugs Control Office, where the sample was stored in the year 1994. The other prayer is to issue summons to the new witness Smt.Sudha, the Chief analyst who is the successor of PW9. Both prayers were disallowed by the learned C.J.M., which is challenged in this petition by the petitioner. 5. The examination of PW2 as a defence witness who was already examined as a prosecution witness has been disallowed by the learned C.J.M. for the reason that the report is already produced before the trial court which is part of the records. The evidentiary value of that report is yet to be decided by the trial Judge. 6. Regarding the second prayer to issue summons to the new witness, to clarify whether the correct and relevant BPC was applied in the matter of conducting analysis of the sample is also devoid of merits which CRL.M.C.1391/04 -3- cannot be allowed, considering the facts and circumstances of this case. The analysis report produced before the concerned court would clearly show the BPC applied in the present case. Whether it was the correct one or not are questions of law to be decided from the facts and evidence on record and after considering the testimony of the witnesses already examined on the side of the prosecution for which examination of the new witness who is the successor of PW9 as prayed for in this petition cannot be allowed. 7. Therefore, I find no reason to take a different view in this matter which is only a tactics for delay and abuse of process of law which cannot be allowed. Therefore, I conclude that there is no merit in this petition and the same is only to be dismissed. In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn