THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6961 of 2008 Dated:04.06.2010 Between: M/s.Pharmaids Pharmaceuticals Ltd., And another. …Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6961 of 2008 ORDER: A-2 is Managing Director of A-1. They are accused of offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for contravention of Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of the said Act. Sample drawn by the Drugs Inspector, Chirala, in this case is Metoclopramide Tablets, Batch No.0101, Manufacturing date 2/2001, Expiry date 1/2003, and manufactured by A-1 Company. A-1 and A-2 are being prosecuted on the ground that the sample drug manufactured by them was substandard in nature. The only point urged by the petitioners’ Counsel before this Court is based on report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. Director of that Laboratory gave final opinion as follows: “No opinion could be given regarding the standard and quality of the sample as per Drugs & Cosmetics Act & Rule as complete tests could not be carried out for want of sufficient intact tablets as only 5 tablets could be taken out in intact condition and most of the tablets are found in broken condition inside the strips.” Thus, finally no opinion could be given both regarding standard as well as quality of the sample as it was felt that the sample was insufficient and as the sample tablets were in broken condition inside the strips and are not fit for analysis. It is pointed out by the Public Prosecutor that in the same report the Central Drugs Laboratory at earlier page stated that “in the opinion of the undersigned the sample is not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs Act 1940 and rules there under for the reason given below”. It is pointed out by the Public Prosecutor that in the earlier version when the Director who opined that the sample drug was not of standard quality, again the same scientific expert should not have opined that no opinion could be given regarding standard as well as quality of the same drug and that there are contrary versions in the same report of the Central Drugs Laboratory. It is well settled principle of law that if there are two versions before the Court out of which one version is favourable to the accused, the Court should give credence to that version which is favourable to the accused than the other version which is favourable to the prosecution. In that view of the matter, the Drugs Inspector should not have launched the prosecution against the petitioners in the lower Court. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.82 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Magistrate of the First Class, Darsi, Prakasam District. ____________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 04.06.2010 vs