1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.921 OF 2010 Ramesh Devichand Jain and Anr. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.Prakash Naik a/w.Ms. Nita Solanki and Mr.Suchi Pareek i/b. Kiran Jain and Co. for Petitioners Mrs. R.V. Newton -APP for the State. --- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATE :13TH JULY, 2010 P.C. ---- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioners are seeking return of property seized by the Respondents. 3. The Learned Magistrate, by order dated 5th June, 2009 was pleased to reject the application for return of property. 2 4. Brief facts are that on 10.7.2008, the Drugs Inspector seized certain items of cosmetics from the premises of the Petitioners and a panchnama was drawn after the seizure of the said cosmetics. Samples were also drawn by the Drugs Inspector for tests and analysis. The Petitioners have a Drugs Licence in form 32 and they are the authorized to manufacture and sale the said seized cosmetics. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Government Analyzer’s report produced by the Respondents does not indicate that the said drugs and cosmetics are spurious or are of inferior quality. It is submitted that therefore, the said cosmetics which are seized ought to have been returned to the Petitioners. It is further submitted that at least empty containers which are seized by the Drugs Inspector ought to have been returned since no useful purpose will be served in detaining these empty containers. It is also submitted that the Petitioners 3 had necessary import documents to show that these cosmetics were legally imported by the Petitioners herein. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has invited my attention to the said documents which are annexed to the Writ Petition. 6. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the Drugs Inspector, on the other hand, has invited my attention to the detailed affidavit in reply filed by the Drugs Inspector, who is attached to the office of the Joint Commissioner, Konkan Division, Food and Drug Administration, ESIS Hospital, Thane. She submitted that there is sufficient material on record to indicate, prima facie, commission of offence by the Petitioners under provisions of section 18 (a) (ii) r/w. 17B, 18(c), 18A, 22(1) (cca),punishable under section 27A (ii), 22(3) and 28 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is submitted that the allegations against the Petitioners are that they are manufacturing the drugs in India and they used to sell 4 them by mis-branding the said drugs and putting the name of foreign companies such as “L'Oreal” etc. It is, therefore, submitted that this is not a fit case for return of the said material particularly, since under section 31, if the offence is established, the said drugs and cosmetics can be confiscated by an order of the Court. 7. After having heard both the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the Respondents at length, in my view, prima facie no case is made out for return of property. There is a power vested in the Court under section 31 of the said Act to confiscate the entire material which has been seized after the accused is convicted in the offence. If the property is returned, there is every possibility that the Petitioners may use even the empty containers for manufacturing inferior spurious drugs and cosmetics and sale them in the market by mis-branding them. So far as the import documents are 5 concerned, these documents were not produced before the Learned Magistrate, which is evident from his application for return of property. 8. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. The trial, however, is expedited. The Learned Magistrate may decide the case expeditiously and, in any case, within a period of one year. (V.M. KANADE J.)