Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF KERALA versus M/S.MODERN PHARMACEUTICAL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE OF KERALA v. M/S.MODERN PHARMACEUTICAL - Crl Rev Pet No. 31 of 2000 [2007] RD-KL 4129 (23 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 31 of 2000()

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M/S.MODERN PHARMACEUTICAL
... Respondent

For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

For Respondent :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :23/02/2007

O R D E R

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J

CRL.R.P.No.31 of 2000

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2007

ORDER

Revision petitioner is the State represented by the Chief Inspector of Drugs Intelligence Squad, Office of the Drugs Controller, Thiruvananthapuram, who had initiated prosecution against the respondent for the offences under Section 18(a)(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The accused was discharged by the court below under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory with respect to the portion of the sample analysed that superseded in the report of the Government analyst vide Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is totally against the prosecution case. The prosecution case as evident from page 3 of the complaint is that the respondent substituted quinine sulphate instead of emetine in the drug, the sample of which was collected, on inspection by the authorities. It is the specific charge in the complaint that alcalade emetine found in the drug can never get converted to quinine sulphate on storage and that the accused intentionally and cleverly added quinine sulphate to CRRP31/2000 Page numbers the drug without using emetine. On the other hand, the copy of the Central Drug Laboratory would show that the sample contained 16% of emetine. Evidently, the contention of the prosecution that the drug did not contain emetine at all and instead quinine sulphate is added is not supported by the findings of the Central Drug Laboratory. Moreover, not even traces of quinine sulphate is not seen noted in the test report of the Central Drug Laboratory.

2. In the circumstances, I find that the contention of the revision petitioner that the test conducted by the Central Drugs Laboratory was not with respect to the presence of quinine sulphate cannot be upheld. In view of Section 25(4) that assigns primacy to the test of Central Drug Laboratory as conclusive evidence, the contention of the prosecution/revision petitioner cannot be upheld. In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed. K.R.UDAYABHANU,

JUDGE

csl CRRP31/2000 Page numbers

K.R.UDAYABHANU, J

CRRP31/2000 Page numbers Crl.R.P.No.899 of 2001

ORDER

15th February, 2007 CRRP31/2000 Page numbers


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.