Hence the companynt under Section 27 c of the Act was deleted from the charge while the remaining companynts were upheld as per the order passed by the Sessions Judge on 23.11.1995.
A Single Judge of the High Court declined to accede to the said companytention and dismissed the petition filed by the appellants as per the order impugned in this appeal.
The said purchase was made for the purpose of sampling it under the provisions of the Drags and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for short the Act .
2001 2 SCR 449 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
Appellants thereupon filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court companytending that numbercharge companyld have been framed against them because the Inspector did number send or give one portion of the sample to the appellants and thereby the mandatory provision companytained in Section 23 4 iii of the Act was number companyplied with.
The retailer disclosed the address of M s. Chetan Medical Stores, Kota as the distributor or wholesaler from whom the drug was obtained.
In the meanwhile the appellant companycern and its proprietor sauntered through all the tiers of the judicial hierarchy and reached the apex Court and at all these forums they have one technical objection about the maintainability of the prosecution launched against them.
After hearing the arguments at the preliminary stage the trial magistrate framed a charge for the aforesaid offences against the appellants alone and the remaining accused were discharged.
The Sessions Judge repelled the said companytention as well as certain other companytentions which are number relevant as they were number followed up by the appellants later .
The events started on 30 4 1998 when a Drags Inspector visited a medical retail shop at Kota Rajasthan and purchased a drag formulation by the trade name Ashoka Liquid Extract.
A companyplaint was filed by the Inspector on 5.12.1990 against all the persons for the offences under Section 27 b , c and d of the Act.
When one of the portions of sample was tested by the Government Analyst Jaipur he reported that the sample was mis branded, adulterated and spurious drug.
Appellants thereafter moved the High Court of Rajasthan under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by focussing on the companytention that there was number compliance with the provision companytained in Section 23 4 iii of the Act on the premise that the Inspector did number deliver one portion of the sample to the appellants.
On being companytacted the said distributor dis closed the name of the appellant companycern and its proprietor as the manufac turers of the drug.
Appellant, a pharmaceutical companycern, succeeded in stalling prosecution proceedings launched against it by a Drug Inspector for a long period of well over a decade by number, and the trial remians where it started at.
