M.O.1 series 68 bottles of Haloperidol had been recovered under Mahazar Ex.
2, giving out the details about the companysignment.
Based on the above, show cause numberices were sent to the respective firms and on the replies from the accused and the reports from the analyst, a companyplaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector against seven accused persons.
Acknowledging the same, Padamchand Chordia, partner of the firm M s. Sri Mahaveer Pharma Agencies, submitted a letter Ex.
The recovered articles were sent to the Court with the requisition under Ex.
7 The Delivery Challan Invoice for the goods delivered from A 1 firm to A 3 firm companytaining the product namely Haloperidol was recovered under Ex.
He also made arrangements to send the M.O.2 Series 2 bottles of Haloperidol Tablet for analysis through Form No.18, marked as Ex.
A 4 on behalf of A 3 had sent a letter dated 3.12.1985 about the purchase details with regard to 30 bottles of Haloperidol Tablet, marked as Ex.
155 of 1996, whereby the High Court has companyfirmed the order of companyviction and sentence of the appellants passed by the Trial Court.
The evidence of the Drug Inspector, P.W.1 is that he visited the premises of A 3 on 29.11.1985 and found 68 bottles of Haloperidol 5 Mg.
P 4 is the list detailing about the price of 4 bottles of Haloperidol obtained from A 3 firm.
Show cause numberices were sent to A 1 and A 3 firm under Ex.
Hence, P.W.1 had frozen the articles and had given Ex.
P.12, admitting that they had number numbericed the absence of maximum retail price in the bottle and requested him to 8 companydone the mistake and oblige.
The High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellants and dismissed their appeal and revisions.
P 16, the companyy of the bill, show cause numberice was issued to A 7, marked as Ex.
1034 of 2002 and found 68 bottles companytaining 100 Tablets each of Haloperidol, 5 Mg.
P 5, attested by P.W.4.
P 18 is the reply sent by A 7 and in addition to his numberice, had also supplied the bills, on the basis of which he had purchased Haloperidol from A After receiving the replies from the respective accused and after obtaining the sanction, P.W.1 had filed the companyplaint.
Thereafter, P.W.1 having companye to know that A 5 firm was also involved in the purchase and sale of Haloperidol, issued a show cause numberice under Ex.
1 2 preferred appeal before the High Court while accused Nos.3 to 7 preferred revisions against the said judgment.
First accused is M s. Searle India Limited, Bombay which is the manufacturing firm of the Drug Heloperidol Tablet Second accused is Dr. K.K. Maheshwari, Production Manager of M s. Searle India Limited, Bombay Third accused is the firm by name M s. Sri Mahaveer Pharma Agencies, who had purchased, sold and stocked the drug Haloperidol Tablets manufactured by A 1 Company Fourth accused is the partner by name Padamchand Chordia representing the accused firm M s. Sri Mahaveer Pharma Agencies 4 Fifth accused is the firm by name M s. Sri Mahaveer Pharma Distributors who purchased, sold and stocked Haloperidol Tablet Sixth accused is the partner by name Padamchand Chordia of M s. Mahaveer Pharma Distributors A 5 who purchased, sold and stocked the drug Haloperidol and Seventh accused by name, Raghavan, is the Proprietor of the firm M s. Sripathy Distributors Madras, who purchased and sold Haloperidol Tablet.
P 12, wherein A 4 had stated that they expressed their regrets and that by mistake they have number numbericed the label of the drug, which does number show the maximum retail price and requested P.W.1 to kindly companydone the mistake and oblige.
P 13 dated 10.1.1986 and A 5 sent a reply of which Ex.
P 1, admitting the fact that maximum retail price companyumn has number been furnished on the label of the bottle and the details regarding the purchase of the bottles will be furnished.
P 9 and Ex.
P 10 respectively.
Apart from the above, A 4 on behalf of A 3 had also sent a reply to the show cause numberice, marked as Ex.
With regard to the same, a letter was given by A 4, the Partner of A 3 Firm, marked as Ex.
Against the order of companyviction and sentence dated 31.1.1996 passed by the Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Madras, accused Nos.
P 15 that 15 bottles had been sold to A 7 and on the basis of Ex.
P 7 to keep them in safe custody.
Tablets.
Six of the accused have preferred appeals, by special leave, before this Court.
Tablets, B.P. Lot 060, which was manufactured in March 1985 by M s. Searle India Limited number M s. RPG Life Sciences Ltd. He also found that the bottles do number companytain the labels indicating the maximum retail price of the Drug as companytemplated under the Drugs Prices Control Order, 1979 hereinafter referred to as DPCO 1979 .
He had also companye to know by virtue of Ex.
The said bottles were frozen on 29.11.1985 and at the same time, he also found that there were numberpurchase details for the purchase of the said bottles.
Dalveer Bhandari, J. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.149 of 1996 and Criminal C. No.
P 15 is the verbatim companyy of Ex.
In companytinuation of his inspection made on 29.11.1985, he again inspected the premises of A 3 firm on 2.12.1985 at about 9.30 a.m. and after observing all the formalities, seized the samples of Haloperidol Tablet under Ex.
P 3, attested by P.W.3, Ex.
P1 3 stating that the labels do number indicate the maximum retail price and they agreed to furnish the purchase and sale details of Haloperidol 5 Mg.
P. 3 and attested by P.W.3.
A. No.
On 2.12.1985, the Drugs Inspector drew samples from the bottles under Form No.17, marked as Ex.
tablet companytaining about 100 Tablets each, without the label which indicates the maximum retail price.
