Report on alleged low-quality drug filed: Proceedings quashed

The report submitted by government analyst is not conclusive: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The case against a drug manufacturing company M/s Mas Pharmachem from Himachal Pradesh and one its partners, Santosh Kumar Gupta was quashed by the High Court of Karnataka as the authorities had procedural lapses.

The report on the drug samples which showed that it was not of standard quality was submitted after the shelf life of the drug had expired. The company thus, did not get the opportunity to subject it for re-analysis, depriving it of its rights.

This led the HC to quash the case against them. Ms Mas Pharmachem, a company from Solan, Himachal Pradesh, and its partner Santosh Kumar Gupta approached the HC against the Drugs Control Department of Karnataka.

A private complaint had been filed against them under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was alleged that a drug manufactured by the company which was sent by the drug inspector to the Government analyst for analysis was declared “as not of standard quality.” The Magistrate court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons after which the company and its partner approached the HC.

The petition was heard by Justice Hemant Chandangoudar. The HC noted in its judgment that “The subject drug was manufactured in the month of February, 2018 and the shelf life was valid for a period of January, 2020. The sample of the subject drug was drawn from the manu factur inguniton 24/4/2018 and it was sent for analysis to the Gover nment analyst on 26.4.2018. The Government analyst by report dated 26.7.2018 declared the subject drug as not of standard quality. The complaint was filed on 15/6/2022 by which time the shelf life of the subject drug had expired.”

The HC said that this delay affected the rights of the accused. “In the present case, the report of the Government analyst was served on the petitioner-accused No.2 or produced before the learned Magistrate, after the shelf life of the subject drug had expired, thus depriving the valuable rights of the petitioner-accused No.2 to send the subject drug for reanalysis since the report submitted by the Government analyst is not conclusive as specified under Section 25(3) of the Drugs Act,” the HC said.

The petition by the Company and Gupta was allowed and the proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi was quashed.