1 CC 1775 of 2005
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: AT HYDERABAD
Present: Smt. G.Pratibha Devi, III Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2012
C.C.No.1775/2005 BETWEEN:
The State of A.P. rep. by its The Drugs Inspector, Hyderabad Complainant
And
1 M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Sajavta Rotlam 457002 Madhya Pradesh, rep. By 2 M.R. Chandunkar (Managing Director) C/o M/c. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Sajarta Rolam 457002 Madhya Pradesh. Accused.
This case is coming before me today for final disposal in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and M/S. M.V.Nagaraj, Counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day,this court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT.
1 This is a complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, Hyderabad against A1 & A2 for the contravention of Secs. 18a(i) r/w sec. 16 of
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under sec. 27(d) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2 The brief facts of the complaint are the complainant is the
Inspector of Drugs appointed by the Government of A.P. Under sec.
21 of A.P. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 having jurisdiction of entire 2 CC 1775 of 2005
State of Andhra Pradesh and he is empowered under sec. 32 of the said Act to launch prosecution.
On 13.6.2002 the complainant has taken samples of 4 x 60 ml Lariago Batch No. DO1040R Mfg. Date 10/2001, Exp. Dt. 9/2003, manufactured by M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. And 4 x 30 ml. Novamox (12 gm/30 ml.) Batch No. SR 2006, Mfd. Date 2/2002, Expiry Date 7/2003 manufactured by M/s. Okasa Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Sirinagar,
Vijayawada 520 007 from the premises of Pharmacy of M/s. Indo
American Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Road No.14, Banjara
Hills, Hyderabad.
The Drug Inspector has forwarded 1 x 60 ml of Lariago suspension of said drug forwarded to the Government analyst, Drugs
Control of Laboratory, Hyderabad vide memorandum 1/6
BSL/D1/APZ/Hyd 2002 dt. 15.6.2002.
On 29.11.2002 the Drug Inspector received the report of analyst of the sample drug in form no.13 from the Government Analyst declaring the said drug as of not of standard quality as the sample does not confirm the assay for chloroquine as per the labeled claim.
3 CC 1775 of 2005
The Drug Inspector addressed a letter on 19.12.2002 along with a copy of form no.13 to incharge of the Pharmacy of M/s. Indo
American Cancer hospital and Research centre, Banjara Hilla, Road
No.14, Hyderabad.
The complainant has received the reply disclosing the particulars that M/s. Vishnu and Sons Pharmaceutical Distributors,
Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad had supplied the drug to them. So, the complainant addressed a letter Dt. 10.1.2003 to M/s. Vishnu and Sons
Pharmaceutical Distributors, Hyderabad requesting them to disclose the source of supply of the said drug to them as required under sec.
18A and also stated that the said drug Not of Standard quality and also requested to furnish true copies of invoice. M/s. Vishnu and Sons
Pharmaceutical Distributors disclosed that they have purchased from
Vishnu Agencies Pharmaceutical Distributors, Opposite Clock Tower,
Sultanbazar, Hyderabad vide invoice No. C241125 dt. 12.11.2001.
On the letter addressed by Drug Inspector, M/s. Vishnu
Agencies Pharmaceutical Distributors, Sultanbazar, Hyderabad furnished the information stating that they acquired the said Not of 4 CC 1775 of 2005
Standard quality drug from M/s. Ipca Lab Ltd., Kailash Bhavan,
Barkatpura, Hyderabad vide invoice No. 3563 dt.8.11.2011.
On the letter addressed by Drug Inspector, M/s. Ipa
Laboratorires Ltd., Kailash Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad gave reply stating that they purchased the said drug from A1 firm. On letter addressed by Drug Inspector, A1 firm received reply from A1 firm along with copy of batch recall circular, batch manufacturing and analytical records.
Thereafter after getting permission to launch prosecution against the accused firm, the Drug Inspector filed complaint against the accused.
3 The case was taken cognizance under section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against A1 to A2 and taken on file. On appearance of A1 & A2, copies of the case documents were furnished.
The accused were examined under sec. 251 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5 CC 1775 of 2005 4 On behalf of the complainant, P.W.1 to P.W.7 are examined
Drug Inspector is and marked Exs.P.1 to P.26 and M.O.s 1 is marked.
5 On behalf of the defence D.W.1 is examined and Exs.D.1 to
D.10 are marked.
6 After closure ofprosecution evidence, the accused were examined under sec. 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available against them. The accused denied the same.
7 Now the point for consideration is:
1.“Whether the accused committed the offence under sec. 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940”?
2.“Whether the complaint is not maintainable for want of notifications under sec. 20 & 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act for notified Drug Inspector and analyst respectively”?
POINT No.1: “Whether the accused committed the offence under sec.
27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940”?
8 The Complainant is examined as P.W.1 and corroborated the contents of the complaint. According to her she worked as Drug
Inspector, Ameerpet till July, 2002 and she was appointed as Drug
Inspector under sec. 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics act of 1940. On 13.6.2002 she lifted the sample drug lariago liquid manufactured by A1 firm i.e. M/s. Ipca Laboratories along with another drug Novamax 6 CC 1775 of 2005 under form no.17 and she sent the sample and she offered to pay the fair price to the registered pharmacist TVLN Raju but he refused to accept the price. So, she prepared receipt and also handedover one portion of the sealed drug. Later, she sent sample portion to drug analyst under form no.18. Later, she was transferred and handedover the file to P.W.2.
9As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1 whether P.W.1 received any complaint from Indo American Institute in respect of said drug. According to PW`1 she did not receive any complaints. So, there are number of suggestions that P.W.1 has not followed procedure.
10In order to prove their case prosecution side examined P.W.3 who worked as Pharmacist of Indo American Cancer Institute and he corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 about P.W.1 visiting institute on 13.6.2002 and lifting the sample syrup Lariago and also handedover form no.17 and 17A to him and later also informed that the sample drug as substandard and P.W.3 identified his signatures on Exs.P.1 &
P.2. So, in view of evidence of P.W.3 we can safely come to conclusion that P.W.1 lifted the sample at Indo American Cancer 7 CC 1775 of 2005
Hospital.
11As seen from the cross examination of P.W.3, he categorically stated that they have not received any complaint against the drug which was found to be sub standard. Any way, mere P.w.1 and P.W.3 not received any complaint against the sample drug is not the ground as according to sec. 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
P.W.1 is competent to lift the sample by visiting any premises as she was appointed as Drug Inspector under sec. 21 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act.
12 P.W.s 4 & 6 are examined on behalf of the complainant.
P.W.4 and P.W.6 are doing pharmaceutical business. According to
P.W.4 he has furnsishd cash memos under Ex.P.10 through Ex.P.9 letter. It was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.4 as per Ex.P.10 cash memo product name of Lariago liquid. On perusal of Exs.P.9 and
P.10, he has addressed letter to Drug Inspector enclosing purchase bills. Ex.P.8 is the letter addressed to P.W.4 by Drug Inspector to furnish purchase bills. Accordingly P.W.4 furnished the purchase bill under Ex.P.10 and in Ex.P.9 it was mentioned that they have not 8 CC 1775 of 2005 received any sample bottle from Indo American hospital. Ex.P.12 is marked through P.W.6 under which P.W.6 informed P.W.2 they have purchased sample drug from Accused firm.
13P.W.5 is the Senior Depot Manager of Mankind
Pharmaceuticals. According to him previously he worked as Senior
Depot Manager from 2000 to 2006. According to him on 3.2.2006 he received copy of Ex.P.14 from P.W.2 along with enclosures. So, he issued reply under Ex.P.15 along with the list of the Distributors under
Ex.P.16. So, Ex.P.14 is the letter issued by P.W.2 to P.W.5. The same was proved with the evidence of P.W.4. Accordingly he furnished the details under Ex.P.15 and P.16. Any way accused are not disputing that he is the Managing Director of Ipca Laboratories. So, we cannot give much importance to the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.6. Only for the purpose of corroboration of evidence the complainant has taken steps and examined them.
14In order to prove the analyst report, the prosecution examined Senior Scientific officer. According to her she previously worked as Government analyst, Drugs Control Administration, 9 CC 1775 of 2005
Hyderabad. Further contention of P.W.7 on 17.6.2002 she received sample drug from P.W.1. Accordingly she anlaysed the sample and issued Ex.P.26 anlayst report. As per the IP specifications the sample drug is not standard quality because the sample drug contains chloroquine 15.42 mg per 5 ml. Instead of 50 mg. per 5 ml.
15As seen from the cross examination of P.W.7 it is elicited the method of anlaysis pertaining to IP 1996 and she has followed addendum pocedure and she has also followed the same procedure in
IP in 2000 addendum for 1996. So, there are number of suggestions
P.W.7 not followed the procedure for analysing the sample. The learned counsel for the accused who filed written arguments arguing that M.O.1 is chloroquine suspension and method adopted by P.W.7 in analysing chloroquine phosphate of chloroquine syrup which is contrary to the method published in Indian Pharmacopoea 2000 addendum. The method of analysis of chloroquine suspension differs from that of chloroquine syrup and further argued that P.W.1 60 ml. Of lariago suspension manufactured by Ipca laboratories and also seals intact and P.W.7 gave opinion sample does not confirm the assay for 10 CC 1775 of 2005 chloroquine as per the labelled claim and as per the labelled claim was for chloroquine is 50 mg per 5 ml. But, in this case it was found 15.42 mg per 5 ml. and she gave reference of IP 1996.
16In this aspect, the accused side got examined D.W.1 who is working as Assistant General Manager Quality and Domestic
Regulatory and he is employee of the accused company i.e. M/s Ipca
Laboratories. According to him the Government analyst not followed the procedure as per IP 2000. The methods for analysing the drug chloroquine phosphate syrup as well as chloroquine phosphate are different in IP 2000. They are owning their own laboratory to test the drug in case of controversy they used to send their drug to Central
Drug Laboratories, Calcutta. IP 2000 addendum is followed by the entire country. The Central Health Ministry, Government of India prescribed IP 2000(Addendum) and they also received letter from
Drug Inspector, Hyderabad. So, argued that P.W.7 not followed the procedure and also got marked Exs.D.1 to D10 on their behalf. Ex.D.1 is the letter addressed to Drug Inspector by A1 firm dt. 3.2.2003 and on behalf of the prosecution also document is marked as Exs.P.17 an 11 CC 1775 of 2005
P.18 are the letters addressed to accused firm and Ex.D.2 is the acknowledgement, Exs.D.3 and D.4 are one and the same. So, Ex.D.4 is the office copy of reply notice issued by the accused company to
P.W.2 dated 15.2.2003 and Ex.D.5 is also one and the same. So,
Ex.D.3 is the analyst report issued by accused Laboratory confirming the correctness of drug manufactured by accused firm. The learned
APPO who filed arguments argued D.W.1 is the employee of the accused company. So, he is interested witness naturally he will depose on behalf of their company and in the cross examination of
D.W.1 by the learned APPO he categorically admitted he is working with Ipca Laboratories and further argued that the accused manufactured the said object drug in October, 2001 and P.W.1 took the sample i.e. M.O.1 on 13.6.2002 and the same was sent for analysis on 15.6.2002. Hence, it can safely presumed that the
Government analyst followed procedure of analysis of chloroquine phosphate suspension only and the same was clarified by P.W.7 through her evidence. So, I am satisfied with the arguments of the learned APPO in this aspect as P.W.7 also clarified the same in her 12 CC 1775 of 2005 cross examination before this court that she has followed the same procedure in IP 2000 addendum for 1996. So, there is no dispute the accused manufactured the said drug in the year 2001 and P.W.1 lifted samples on 13.6.2002. So, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the accused and the evidence of D.W.1 and on perusal of Ex.P.18 letter written by the accused to Drug Inspector. On receipt of the letter they have recalled above batch drug by recall circular to all wholesale retailers and distributors by enclosing copies.
So, Ex.D4 and D5 are the letters dated 15.2.2003 and 27.2.2003 addressed by the counsel to Drug Inspector Hyderabad enclosing enclosing copies of the test report mentioning their product in suspension form and hence the methodology followed for chloroquine phosphate syrup IP is not suitable for their chloroquine phosphate suspension which is in suspension form and also they have had correspondence with the Central Indian Pharmacopoeia Laboratory,
Gaziabad. So, they are totally disputing the opinion of the analyst. So, in this aspect, learned APPO argued only to create confusion in the mind of the court Exs.D1 to D.9 are brought into existence.
13 CC 1775 of 2005 17P.W.2 is another Drug Inspector who took up investigation in this case. So, P.W.2 categorically deposed before this court she has addressed letter to accused along with analyst report. If the accused is intending to adduce evidence in contravention of Government analyst report under sec. 25(3) within 28 days from the date of receipt of this letter as stipulated under sec. 25(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and also she further informed she has handedover one sealed portion to
Vishnhu and Sons Pharmaceuticals for which P.W.4 and P.W.6 categorically deposed before this court that they received form no.13 along with sample. So, accused is not disputing about Ex.P.17 as
Ex.P.18 is the correspondence made by the accused to P.W.1 as
Exs.P.18 and Ex.D.5 are one and the same as prosecution only marked Ex.P.18 one sheet but the accused marked two sheets under
Ex.D.5. On perusal of Ex.D.5 this accused only requested the Drug
Inspector not to pursue the case and drop proceedings if the Drug
Inspector agreed their proposal and it will not be necessary to send sample to Central Drug Laboratory and if the Drug Inspector is of the opinion it is necessary to get opinion and report of the Director, Central 14 CC 1775 of 2005
Drug Laboratories, they have no objection except notifying you under sec. 25(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. So, it is a vague reply issued by the accused under Ex.D.5 to the Drugs Inspector. Once they are admitting they received notice under sec. 17 under which the Drug
Inspector requested the accused if they want to challenge the same within 28 days they have to make a request but under Ex.D.5 they only left the option to P.W.1 but there is no request asking P.W.2 for sending sample to Central Drug Laboratory as contemplated under sec. 25(3) of the Act and under Ex.P.5 in one way they are requesting
P.W.1 to drop proceedings and in another way they are asking they have no option except to make request to the Drug Inspector if the
Drug Inspector is of the opinion the sample should be sent to Central
Laboratory. So, it is option left to the accused to send the sample to
Central Drug Laboratory but they did not utilise the option and seeking mercy of the Drug Inspector to stop proceedings. So, it strengthens the arguments of the learned APPO without utilising the option as contemplated under sec. 25(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act as they are aware of the fact the material object is failing to meet the 15 CC 1775 of 2005 requirement as per the standards laid down under the Act. So, they did not chose to send the same to Central Laboratory.
18In the cross examination of D.W.1 he categorically admitted under Ex.D.2 they requested time to investigate the case and Ex.D.3 is analysis report of his company on their own accord. He further admitted under Ex.D.3 the sample analysed by their company was not the sample lifted by the Drug Inspectors and also under Ex.D.4 their company disputed the analyst report of P.W.7. So, learned APPO argued that once they are disputing analyst report of P.W.7, the only option left for accused to send the sample to Central Drug Laboratory but they did not come forward to send the same and on their own accord they got analysed the drug in their lab which is not the sample drug lifted by P.W.1. So, we cannot give much importance to Ex.D.3 analyst report as it is not the sample drug. So, there is no merit in the evidence of D.W.1 and the documents Exs.D1 to D.9. Ex.D.9 is only
Indian Pharmacopoeia, 2007 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Unless the contents are proved mere marking of that document is not sufficient as D.W.1 is not working in 16 CC 1775 of 2005
Government of India. As such contents of Ex.D.9 must be proved by examining the concerned pers0on. So, there is merit in the arguments of the learned APPO that the accused on their own they analysed the sample and obtained Ex.D.3 analyst report that the lariago chloroquine suspension IP confirms about the specification of IP. Under Ex.D.2 they addressed letter to the Drug Inspector they are investigating above matter and they will confirm after their investigation. Once
P.W.1 issued notice under Ex.P.17 to accused to send the sample to
Cetral Government analyst within 28 days as laid down under the Act.
There is no merit in the arguments of the counsel for the accused corresponding with Drug Inspector under Ex.D.2 and Exs.D.4 and D.5 by analysing the sample in their own laboratory as Ex.D.3 is the certificate of analysis with letter head of Ipca Laboratories Ltd. Issued by the analyst managing quality control. So, D.W.1 is not the analyst who issued Ex.D.3. He is only authorised person under Ex.D.10 to give evidence on behalf of the accused company as he is the Assistant
General Manager. So, the contents of Ex.D.3 also not proved as rightly argued by the learned APPO as the prosecution has lost opportunity to 17 CC 1775 of 2005 cross examine the analyst who analysed the sample under Ex.D.3 with regard to specifications 49.5 mg per 5 ml. of chloroquine phosphate.
So, there is no merit in the case of the accused analysing the sample in their laboratory confirming the standard on their own.
19The further contention of P.W.2 is after receiving analysis report she received reply from the accused. So, Ex.P.4 is the basis for launching prosecution. Ex.P.23 is the list of property. So, after obtaining sanction she filed complaint. Ex.P.21 is the letter addressed by the Drug Control Administration to the Drug Inspector recalling of the sample drug and to complete the legal formalities and to take action as per law. So, accordingly, P.W.2 filed complaint against the accused. Except giving formal suggestions to P.W.2 nothing adverse is elicited from the cross examination of p.W.2 by the counsel for accused. So, considering all these aspects in view of Ex.P.4 analyst report, we cannot give much importance to Ex.D.3 analysis report which was analysed by the accused on their own as it is not the analyst report of the Central Government. So, we cannot give much importance to the evidence of D.W.1 and Ex.D.3 to believe the version 18 CC 1775 of 2005 of accused. Hence, the complainant has made out the case for the offence under sec. 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act against the accused. Hence, the point No.1 is answered accordingly against the accused.
20POINT NO.2. “Whether the complaint is not maintainable for want of notifications under sec. 20 & 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act for notified Drug Inspector and analyst respectively”?
In this case there are suggestions to P.W.2 by the learned counsel for the accused that P.W.2 has not followed the procedure as laid down under the Act. P.W.2 is notified Drug Inspector under sec.
21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Ex.P.24 is the notification to show
P.W.2 appointed as Drug Inspector for the entire state and in view of the decision reported in reported in 969 Supreme Court on Food
Adulteration Cases 19481997 Supreme Court of India in the case of
State of U.P. Vs. Hanif in Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1983 dt.
31.3.1992, it is held:
“Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 –
Section 8 – Public Analyst appointed for the 19 CC 1775 of 2005 whole of U.P. In 1972 – Later in 1975 another
Public Analyst appointed for the regions of
Varanasi and Allahabad – Jurisdiction of the
Public Analyst – Both the officers have power and jurisdiction to analyst the articles of the food covered under the Act and submit a report in that behalf to the local authorities or the Inspector of
Food as the case may be, to take appropriate action under the Act, based on the report so submitted”
At para 3 the Hon'ble Lordships held:
“Section 8 postulates appointment of more than one Public Analyst for such local areas as may be assigned to them y the Central or State
Government as the case may be. So, it is open to the State Government to appoint more than one public analyst to any local area or areas and both would coexist to have power and jurisdiction to analyse an article to find whether the same is adulterated in addition to Dr. S.B.
Singh, who was appointed as Public analyst for the whole of the State of U.P. as one single local area for the purpose of the Act, Shri B.S.
Gard, Asst. Public Analyst, was appointed as
Public Analyst for Varanasi and Allahabad region which shall be deemed to be one single local area for the purpose of the Act. So, both the officers have power and jurisdiction as the case may be to take action under the said Act.
20 CC 1775 of 2005
So, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Lordships, P.W.2 followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act and she is notified Drug Inspector. So, she can lift the samples in the entire State in view of Ex.P.24. So, P.W.2 is competent to launch prosecution against the accused and Ex.P.25 is the gazette notification with regard to appointment of analyst P.W.7 as Government analyst to show that she is qualified analyst to analyse the samples under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act. Hence, point no.2 is answered accordingly against the accused as the complainant complied the provisions under sec. 20 and 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
21 In the result, A1 & A2 are found guilty for the offence under secs. 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and they are convicted under sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, Corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of January,
2012.
III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:.
HYDERABAD.
21 CC 1775 of 2005
Dt.3.1.2012
A1 represented by A2 questioned about the quantum of sentence.
A2 reported not guilty. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, lenient view has not taken against the accused and A1 is the company represented by A2. As A1 is non juristic person it cannot undergo sentence imposed by this court and A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo S.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/ (Rupees
Twenty thousands only) each in default of payment of fine, A1 & A2 shall undergo S.I. for 6 months each. Since A1 is company the sentenced imposed against A1 shall undergo by A2 who is representing A1 and both the sentences of A1 & A2 shall run concurrently.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, Corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of January,
2012.
III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:HYD.
HYDERABAD.
22 CC 1775 of 2005
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSESEXAMINED
Prosecution
P.W.1: B.Soubhagyalakshmi, Drug Inspector who lifted sample.
P.W.2: P.Sarala, Drug Inspector who launched prosecution.
P.W.3: TVLN Rajasehkumar, Pharmacist, Indo Amrican
Cancer hospital.
P.W.4: Manik Chandra Gupta, Owner of Vishnu and Sons.
P.W.5: B.Bhaskara Srinivas, Senior Depot Manager,
Ipca LaboratoriesLtd.
P.W.6: Vishnu Kumar Gupta, Pharmaceutical Distributor
Vishnua Agencies,
P.W.7: B.Uma Devi, Government Analyst.
For Defence:
D.W.1: Prakash Hiralal Desai, Asst. General Manager
Quality and Domestic Regulatory, Bombay
No. of exhibits marked for prosecution.
Ex.P.1 is Form No.17
Ex.P.1A acknowledgement dt. 13.6.2002 on the reverse of Ex.P.1.
Ex.P.2: Form 17A receipt.
Ex.P.3: Form 18 (Memorandum to Government Analyst)
Ex.P.4: Government analyst report in Form No.13
Ex.P.5: Office copy of letter addressed to TVLN Raju
Ex.P.6: Letter from Incharge pharmacist Indo American
Cancer institute.
Ex.P.7: copy of invoice bill no. CVS26133
Ex.P.8: letter addressed to M/s. Vishnu and Sons.
Ex.P.9: letter from Vishnu and sons.
Ex.P.10: cash memo
Ex.P.11: copy of letter to Vishnu Agencies.
Ex.P.12: Letter from Vishnu Agencies.
Ex.P.13: copy of invoice from challan.
23 CC 1775 of 2005
Ex.P.14:copy of letter to IPCA Laboratories Ltd.
Ex.P.15:letter from IPCA laboratories Ltd.
Ex.P.16:copy of invoice cum challan.
Ex.P.17:Copy of letter to M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd.
Ex.P.18:letter from M/s. IPCA Laboratories Ltd.
Ex.P.19: Letter from the Director, Drugs Control
Administration.
Ex.P.20: Copy of RC NO. 17382 dt. 9.1.2003.
Ex.P.21: Letter from the Director, Drugs Control
Administration, Hyderabad
Ex.P.22: copy of requisition to the court.
Ex.P.23: Copy of list of property
Ex.P.24: Copy of GO No. 450 dt. 17.11.1997
Ex.P.25: GOMs. No. 05 Health Medical and Family Welfare
Ex.P.26: Analyst report (marked twice as Ex.P.4 and P.26)
No. of exhibits marked for defence:
Ex.D.1: Letter addressed to accused company.
Ex.D.2: office copy of acknowledgement dt. 12.2.2003.
Ex.D.3: Certificate of analysis chloroquine phosphate
Ex.D.4: Office copy of the reply notice.
Ex.D.5: Office copy of the second reply notice.
Ex.D.6: Letter dt. 29.7.1997 issued by Central Drug
Laboratory.
Ex.D.7: Letter dt. 6.1.1997
Ex.D.8: Analysis report dt. 29.12.2006
Ex.D.9: Extract of India Pharmacopoeia, 2007.
Ex.D.10. Authorisation letter given accused firm.
No. of M.o.s marked
M.O.1: Sample bottle of chloroquine phosphate suspension.
III ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
HYDERABAD
24 CC 1775 of 2005