Jammu and Kashmir High Court Upholds Trial of Drug Manufacturer for Substandard Quality

Court dismisses petition challenging Chief Judicial Magistrate's jurisdiction and procedural adherence in drug quality case

In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed a petition filed by M/s Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., challenging the proceedings against them for manufacturing drugs deemed not of standard quality. The case, which has been pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, revolves around allegations that the drug 'Monocef' produced by Aristo Laboratories failed to meet the required standards as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Justice Sanjay Dhar presided over the case, rejecting the petitioner's arguments regarding jurisdiction and procedural lapses. The petitioner contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent to try the case, citing provisions under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, the court clarified that Section 36-A allows for summary trials of offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, by a Judicial Magistrate of first class specially empowered by the government.

The court further addressed the petitioner's allegation that a portion of the drug sample was not provided to them, which they claimed violated Section 23(4) of the Act. Justice Dhar dismissed this claim, referencing the communication dated 25.06.2012, which confirmed the delivery of the sample to Aristo Laboratories. The petitioner had acknowledged receipt through their response, thus nullifying their argument.

Another point of contention was the nature of the order taking cognisance of the offence. The petitioner argued that the order was cryptic and lacked application of mind. The High Court refuted this, noting that a fresh order dated 17.10.2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, demonstrated a thorough consideration of allegations and established a prima facie case under Section 18(a)(i) of the Act.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the Drugs Officer, Anantnag, following the analysis of the drug sample by the Government Analyst, Jammu, which declared it substandard. The sample was subsequently re-tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, reaffirming the initial findings.

This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to enforcing drug quality standards and ensuring accountability within the pharmaceutical industry. The court's ruling emphasizes the proper jurisdiction and adherence to procedural norms, reinforcing the role of Judicial Magistrates in summary trials under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Bottom Line:

Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Manufacturer's liability for drugs not of standard quality - Complaint filed under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Court holds that Chief Judicial Magistrate is empowered to try the complaint as per Section 36-A of the Act.

Statutory provision(s): Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sections 18(a)(i), 27(d), 36A, 23(4), 25(2), 32, 36-AB

M/s Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v. UT of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2808652