IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30851 of 2008 Ram Chandra Sah, son of Late Deo Narayan Sah, village Mathurapur, PS Warisnagar, District Samastipur – Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar ----------- 2 30.6.2011 Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jhakhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. representing the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur in Warisnagar PS Case No. 34/2007 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under section 27(B)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The prosecution case indicates that on 20.2.2007 the Drug Inspector visited M/s. Sunbeam Pharmaceutical Industries, which is in the business of manufacturing medicines, and on inspection came to the conclusion that the medicines were kept out side the designated area. The said place of occurrence as described in the FIR at Mathurapur, Samastipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as manufacturer is concerned, he would be covered by the provisions of section 24 of the Act. Section 24 reads as follows: “24. Persons bound to disclose place where drugs 2 or cosmetics are manufactured or kept.- Every person for the time being in charge of any premises whereon any drug (or cosmetic) is being manufactured or is kept for sale or distribution shall, on being required by any Inspector so to do, be legally bound to disclose to the Inspector the place where the drug (or cosmetic) is being manufactured or is kept, as the case may be.” This section envisages that a manufacturer would be bound to disclose to the Inspector the place where the drug is kept or manufactured as the case may. The allegation that the medicines were kept beyond the designated area seems to be unfounded. It is admitted in the FIR that the Drug Inspector and his team visited the petitioner‟s designated place of business i.e. Mohalla Mathurapur. It is not the allegation that the petitioner had merely maintained his godown at the place of inspection. It is also not alleged that the petitioner did not disclose any information regarding the place where the drugs were stored. This court, thus, finds that in fact there is no violation of section 24 of the Act. Cognizance has been taken under section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. Section 27 reads as follows: “27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.- - - - - - -“ “27(b) any drug- “(ii) without a valid licence as required under clause © of section 18, shall be punishable with imprisonment 3 for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not less than five thousand rupees:.” Section 27(b) refers to section 18 (c) of the Act. Section 18(c) provides that no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf “manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic, except under and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter. “Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed conditions, of small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis. “Provided further that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the manufacture for sale or for distribution sale, stocking or exhibiting or offering for sale or distribution of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard quality.” The petitioner has annexed a copy of the licence granted to him. It is not the prosecution case that the petitioner did not have valid licence. The licence is granted in Form 25. The conditions of the licence or the condition under which manufacture is permissible, are mentioned in the licence itself. The allegations in the FIR do not commensurate with the fact 4 that the petitioner is guilty of violating any part of the licence. The petitioner had stored the medicines at his place of business and as such there was no violation of the provisions of section 27(b)(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In the facts aforesaid this court finds that no case is made out against the petitioner. The order impugned is hereby and this application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)