In Crl.A.No.671 of 2010-MAD HC- Responsibility of maintaining carbon copy of cash or credit memos and maintenance of records on purchase of drug for sale is vested on licensee under Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945: Madras HC Justice G.Jayachandran [30-06-2022]

Read Order: State Rep. By The Senior Drugs Inspector v. M/s.subiksha Trading Services Pvt. Ltd And Ors

Tulip Kanth

Chennai, July 1, 2022: The Madras High Court has showed leniency in a matter pertaining to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act where prescription registers were not maintained properly but has also clarified that the primary responsibility under the statute to maintain carbon copy of sale bills and records of purchase is was upon the licensee.

Relying upon the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and The Drugs Rules 1945, the Bench of Justice G.Jayachandran asserted, “Reading of the above Rules, which is alleged to have been violated, it is clearly found that the responsibility of maintaining a carbon copy of cash or credit memos and maintenance of records on purchase of drug intended for sale is vested on the licensee.”

The case of the complainant was that in 2000, the Senior Drug Inspector inspected the accused Company, in which, the second and the third accused had been working as the Managing Director and Manager. The accused firm found that the carbon copies of the sales bills were not maintained. Similarly, the purchase bills for some tablets were not available. The inspection was conducted and show cause notice for contraventions of Sections 18(c) of Act read with 65(3), 65(4)(3)(ii), 65(4)(4) and 65(6) of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules was served on the accused. The reply of the accused was not satisfactory and taking other necessary action, complaint was lodged, after obtaining sanction. 

The accused was the company represented by its Managing Director and Manager. The Trial Court acquitted the accused for all charges by holding that it was admitted that Pharmacist was responsible for maintaining records pertaining to the business of the accused company. Therefore, holding that the complainant did not issue proper show cause notice to the appropriate person who was responsible to the authority, complaint filed in haste was dismissed.The complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, had preferred the appeal before this Court.

The Bench was of the opinion that even if Pharmacist is responsible for documentation, the primary responsibility under the statute to maintain carbon copy of sale bills and records of purchase is upon the licensee, who were the first and second accused in this case. As per the Bench, if the trial Court during the course of trial had found that there were further accused who appeared to be guilty of the offence, the course open to the trial Court was to exercise its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., but not acquittal of the accused. 

Observing that noninclusion of such a person as accused will not vitiate the trial against the persons where there is a prima facie material to prosecute, the Bench held that the trial Court wrongly exercised its power to acquit the accused against whom the prosecution had alleged violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act as licensee.

However, the Bench disposed of the petition after considering submission of respondent’s counsel that the first respondent company had become defunct and the second respondent was no more in drug business and after lapse of 12 years, remand or retrial will put great hardship to the second appellant/accused. Hence prayed, leniency was shown by the Bench since, the charges against the respondents were only for non-production of documents and it was not a very serious violation.