Sanjay Kumar Gupta ORDER
Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.
1. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company having its registered office at Ban House, Gondal Road, South, Rajkot Gujarat. The petitioner No. 2 claims to be the Chairman of the said Company. It is stated that petitioner No. 1-Company has been granted license, being License No. UTRA-AYU-50 of 2004 to manufacture for sale of the Ayurvedic drugs; that the said license has been last renewed under Rule 155 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that respondent has filed a criminal complaint under Sections 18(a), 18(b) and 18(c) read with Sections 27(b) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the petitioners and one Bharat Bhushan Mantoo (accused No. 1 in the complaint). It is stated that a bare reading of the complaint reveals that complainant-respondent is seeking to prosecute the accused in the complaint under Sections 18(a), 18(b) and 18(c) read with Sections 27(b) and 127(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Sub-Sections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 18 of the Act prescribe and create prohibitions with respect to manufacture for sale or for distribution of certain drugs and cosmetics, sale or stocking etc., of any such drug and cosmetics and the manufacture for sale or distribution any such drug under the circumstances mentioned in these Sub-Sections. Section 27 of the Act prescribes and provides penalties for committing offences in violation of the aforesaid provision.
3. Petitioners have stated in this petition that respondent No. 1 while conducting the action, has not complied the provision of Chapter IVA of Drug and Cosmetic Act, which is applicable to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs; that Drug Inspector who filed the complaint was not competent, because he was not Inspector appointed as per chapter IVA of the Act.
4. Objections have been filed by the respondent No. 1. The stand taken in the objections is that there is no case made out for quashing the proceedings and that the allegations alleged in the complaint, prima facie, constitute an offence against the petitioners under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is stated that respondent No. 1 is presently holding the office of Drug Inspector Jammu, Zone-1, and is well aware of the facts and circumstances of the matter under question. It is further stated that the Drug Inspector, Jammu, is an Inspector appointed in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetic, Act 1940 under SRO No. 288 dated 28.07.1989.
5. I have considered the rival contentions. I have also gone through the law on the subject.
6. Admittedly drugs (Leucogyl Capsules), which was lifted by Drug Inspector and sent for Analysis is Ayurvedic dugs. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 regulates the import, manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics. Section 3(a) of Act defines Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs; it reads as under:-
3[(a) "[Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani] drug" includes all medicines intended for internal or external use for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of 8 [disease or disorder in human beings or animals, and manufactured] exclusively in accordance with the formulae described in, the authoritative books of [Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Tibb systems of medicine], specified in the First Schedule;]
Section 3(b) defines drug; it reads as under;-
[(b) "drug" includes-- [(i) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling insects like mosquitoes;]
(ii) such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or a........