1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4550 OF 2008 Ramkrishna Harishet Kolwankar ..... Applicant. V/s The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent. Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel with Mr. Mohan P Tekavde and Mrs. Swati M. Tekavde for applicant. Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 18th February, 2009 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is an application for anticipatory bail. Applicant is the Managing Director of M/s Grindlays Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. FIR has been registered against the present applicant at Panvel under section 18(a)(i) and 18(c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rules 104(a) & 17 & 2 17(B), 27(b), (c) & (d) read with section 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. In the FIR, it is alleged that on 13/6/2008 Mr. K.D. More, Drug Inspector (Vigilance), Mumbai at Bhiwandi, Manav Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Gala No.3, Drugs Compound, Purna Village, Bhiwandi, District Thane, found a lot with the label of Metaformin HCH/BP on which Drug Licence No.206.raigad/826 Z 1B Raigad 1762 and Made in India Grindlays Pharmaceuticals was mentioned. However, he noticed that there was no name, address and Drug Sale License Number on the said label. Two samples from the said lot were taken for analysis and a prohibition order for sale of the said balance lot was imposed. An inquiry was made. The factory premises were inspected and lot of discrepancies were found on number of drums which were kept in the said factory premises. On some drums, names of the manufacturer Chiplun Fine Chemicals Ltd., Cote Parshuram, District Raigad were found. The said lot was confiscated. It was alleged in the said complaint that the said Company was buying drugs from various manufacturers and was removing labels of the original manufacturers and was putting the label of Grindlays Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 3 at Panvel and displaying that they themselves were the manufacturers. It was alleged that major supply of the said drugs was from Chiplun Fine Chemicals Ltd., Cote Parshuram, District Raigad and that the license of the said Company had been suspended. It was alleged that though this fact was known to the applicant, the said drugs were purchased from the said Company and were sold by the applicant's Company. It was also alleged that the applicant was the Director of M/s Grindlays Pharmaceutical Private Limited and also of Chiplun Fine Chemicals Ltd. It was further alleged that with the help of one Laxman Patil, the drugs manufacturer's labels were removed and the labels of applicant's own company were put. It was further alleged that the applicant was manufacturing drugs without license and that he was manufacturing drugs which were substandard and that the duplicate type of drugs were produced. 3. Applicant had filed an application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court. The said application was rejected and, thereafter, the present application has been filed. 4 4 Mr. Gupte, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the applicant was entitled to borrow the license of another manufacturer and thereafter sell the drugs in the open market. It was further submitted that the chemical analysis of the sample was made and the report indicated that the drugs were of standard quality. It was further submitted that the applicant was no longer a Director of Chiplun Fine Chemicals Ltd. and that he had resigned and his resignation was tendered to the Registrar of Companies. He relied upon the certified copy of Form 32 issued by the Registrar of Companies in support of his submission. 5. The learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has filed his affidavit- in-reply and has pointed out that the applicant had removed the labels of Chiplun Fine Chemicals Ltd., and had replaced it with the labels of his own Company. He submitted that the certificate of analysis on which reliance has been placed by the applicant is the certificate of the product which was analysed, checked and approved by 5 various persons who were not competent or authorized to sign the said certificate. 6. After having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the learned APP for the State, I am of the view that no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail taking into consideration the serious allegations which are made against the present applicant. Section 17-B(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as under:- “ 17B. Spurious drugs – For the purpose of this Chapter, a drug shall be deemed to be spurious,- (a) ............. (b) ............. (c) if the label or container bears the name of an individual or company purporting to be the manufacturer of the drug, which individual or company is fictitious or does not exist” In the present case, it is apparent from the material which is 6 on record that the applicant used to purchase drugs from Chiplun Fine Chemicals Ltd. whose license had been suspended by the competent authority and replace the said labels with the labels of his own Company. Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provides for penalty for manufacture, sale etc. of drugs in contravention of the Chapter wherein sub-section (a) is punishable with imprisonment of a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees. Section 27(a) reads as under:- “ 27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc. of drugs in contravention of this chapter – Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks, or exhibits, or offers for sale or distributes :- (a) any drug deemed to be adulterated under Section 17A or spurious under Section 17B or which when used by any person for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of any disease or disorder is 7 likely to cause his death or is likely to cause such harm on his body as would amount to grievous hurt within the meaning of section 320 of the Indian Penal Code solely on account of such drug being adulterated or spurious or not of standard quality, as the case may be, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to a term of life and with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees;” 7. In my view, custodial interrogation of the applicant is, therefore, essential and there is sufficient material to show the involvement of the present applicant in the said offence. Application for anticipatory bail therefore is rejected. However, 10 days' time is given to the applicant to surrender before the appropriate court. If the application for regular bail is filed before the appropriate court, the same may be decided expeditiously, on merits and in accordance with law. 8. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)