THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRLA. No.302 of 2010 Date: 26.2.2010 Between: The State of A.P., Rep by its Drug Inspector, Mahaboobnagar. Appellant. And M/s.Premier Formulations, Rep by Sri K.Rama Rao, Proprietor and others. Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRLA No.302 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, represented by the Drug Inspector, Mahaboobnagar, on obtaining special leave as per order dated 18.2.2010 passed in Crl.A.MP.No.389 of 2010, assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2008 recorded in C.C.No.641 of 1999 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The Drug Inspector, Prodatur inspected the shop of M/s.Liberty Medical & General Stores in the presence of L.W.2-Md.Abdul Razak and collected samples of Adplex liquid. He sent the sample to the Government Analyst and on analysis, the sample found to be not of standard quality and it does not conform to label claim in respect of Vitamin B1 content. He issued a notice to the proprietor of M/s. Liberty Medical & General Stores on 14.11.1997. On 19.11.1997, the proprietor of the Medical Shop disclosed the source of his securing Adplex liquid from M/s.Deepthi Pharma, Vijayawada and invoice No.64, dated 9.5.1997. Thereupon, the Drug Inspector issued notice to M/s.Deepthi Pharma, Vijayawada seeking particulars of dealer from whom the said drug has been acquired. On 28.11.1997, the Drug Inspector received a letter from M/s.Deepthi Pharma, Vijayawada, wherein it is stated that the subject drug has been purchased from A1- M/s.Premier Formulations, Poranki. The Drug Inspector issued notice to M/s.Premier Formulaitons-A1; A1 failed to give a reply despite remainder. On 15.5.1998, the Drug Inspector received communication stating that the subject firm is closed since 1997 and A2-K.Rama Rao, proprietor of the firm, has not submitted renewal proposal for the year 1998-99. The investigation revealed that the drug manufactured by them is not of standard quality. A complaint came to be presented by the Drug Inspector, Mahaboobnagar before III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.641 of 1999. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing the copies to them, the learned Magistrate examined them under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and framed charges under Sections 27 (a), 27 (d) and 28 (a) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The accused pleaded not guilty for charges levelled against him and he claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they stood charged, prosecution examined 2 witnesses as P.Ws.1 & 2 and exhibited one material object as M.O.1. Considering the material brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty for the offence with which they stood charged and acquitted them accordingly, by judgment dated 14.11.2008. The judgment of acquittal is assailed in this Criminal Appeal. 5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/complainant and perused the judgment impugned in the appeal. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that P.W.1 is competent to inspect the local shops and collect samples, and, therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court that P.W.1 is not competent to collect the samples of the drugs cannot be sustained. The trial Court recorded the acquittal of the accused on the ground that P.W.1 has not placed any material to show that he has been appointed as Drug Inspector for the area wherein M/s.Liberty Medical & General Stores, Mahaboobnagar, situates. 7. Para Nos.13 and 14 of the judgment of the impugned in the appeal needs to be noted: “Heard from both sides and also perused the written arguments filed by the accused. As seen from the oral and documentary evidence of the complaint, it is clear as contended by the counsel for the accused that the complainant did not properly follow the procedure laid down under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act before launching prosecution. The counsel for the accused contends that the persons who distributed the drugs also should be shown as accused. The drugs were distributed though several places and though several persons, the value of the drug is likely to be deteriorated if placed under different climatic conditions that the accused cannot be held responsible for the sample lifted after some time at some other place. There is no material placed before the court to show that drug was kept in a particular temperature to preserve its ingredients, in such a situation the accused cannot be held liable for the standard of drug which was manufactured long back. His contention is that P.W.1 admits that Ex.P.5 is not sent with full protocols. In Ex.P.5 there were no details as to the method applied for analysis of the drug. P.W.1 says that he did not seize any document from accused firm and further he admits that he did not investigate regarding manufacture of the sample drug. He did not even visit the accused firm P.W.1 admits that there is no complaint from the public about the subject drug. The learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision reported in 2007 Drug Cases (DC) 3 between M/s.Gaba Pharmaceuticals, Hyderabad and another Vs. State of A.P. wherein it was held by Hon’ble High Court that the provisions of Sections 20 & 21 which are mandatory should be followed by the complainant; the appointment of the analyst specifying the local area wherein the analyst can operate should be published and prosecution has to produce such gazette notification specifying the area. When the complainant failed to place such material there is no need to adjudicate on other grounds and that itself is a lacuna. In another decision reported in 1999 Crl.L.Journal 4441 wherein the court observed on the same principle that without notification appointing Government analyst not specifying the area wherein he can operate and analyse the appointment of such analyst also is not followed; similarly in another decision reported in 1979 Crl.Law Journal 530 furnishing protocols of test applied is mandatory under Sec.12 & 18 of the Act.” 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not placed before me any notification issued by the State Government appointing P.W.1 as Drug Inspector for the local area wherein M/s.Liberty General & Medical Stores, Mahaboobnagar, situates. In the absence of any notification, it cannot be said that he is competent to collect the samples of drugs from M/s.Liberty General & Medical Stores, Mahaboobnagar. The trial Court having taken note of mandatory provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 proceeded to record the order of acquittal of respondents-accused. I do not see any flaw in the judgment impugned in this Appeal warranting any interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal fails and it is dismissed at the admission stage. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:26.2.2010 mrb