'Played With Lives For Personal Gains': P&H High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Accused Allegedly Manufacturing Adulterated Sanitizer

The bench noted that it was clear that the product was launched without proper testing only to earn huge profits during the Covid-19 pandemic. A bench of Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed, “…The petitioners had thus played with the lives of the people for their personal gains. Due to seriousness of the matter, the punishment provided under various provisions of Drug and Cosmetic Act is also very high. Simply because the petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case is no ground to grant them benefit of anticipatory bail. The allegations against the petitioners are very serious. Moreover, main complaint is pending before the trial court”.

Advocate Keshav Pratap Singh appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Gurmeet Kaur Gil appeared for the Union of India.

In this case, the complainant-Drug Inspector on the directions of Deputy Drugs Controller constituted a team comprising two drugs Inspectors of CDSCO for necessary sampling of sanitizer for the testing and analysis from various area of Punjab.

Therefore, on visiting M/s Gupta Medical Hall for the same purpose, it was found that the santizers were adulterated and sub-standard. It was also reported that the sample did not conform to the claim as per IP 2018 with respect to the identification and the Assay of Isopropyl Alcohol and sample contains 77.43% v/v Methanol, while the label claim is Isopropyl Alcohol IP 70 w/v.

Pursuant to which an FIR was registered against the two petitioners-accused under Sections 32/16/17-A(f)/17- B(d)/18(a)(i)/ 18(a)(vi) & 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Sections 27(b)(1), 27(c), 27(d), 36-AC of the said Act. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the firm.

It was the case of the petitioners that they were not present at the spot and had no direct or indirect connection with the alleged seizure of samplers of drugs. It was further contended that the in alleged seizure report, the respondents failed to report the number of alleged pieces of “pure handrub plus” sanitizers allegedly displayed at the retail shop.

It was further submitted that the factum of adulteration and substandard quality of the hand sanitizer is yet to be ascertained.

However, the Union of India vehemently objecting to the same primarily argued that given the nature of the offence, it is a case for strict liability and the petitioners are not liable to be extended the concession of anticipatory bail, as sought for.

The bench after considering the averments made was of the opinion that they are prima facie specific and precise, and the trial court was justified in taking cognizance against the petitioners. It observed, “…By any stretch of imagination, it is expected from the petitioners and its company to verify and test the contents of the hand sanitizer and ensure that the same is utilizable by the masses which are already facing the anathema of pandemic. Even otherwise, the petitioners have to face the music of its mis-action because ultimately, the product which was allegedly purchased by the petitioners and its company, has been found to be adulterated and substandard”.

“The argument of the petitioners is also misplaced to aver that the order passed by the trial court is absolutely silent as to on which basis, the provisions of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs are made out against the petitioners. The trial court, at the very first instance, is not expected to carry out any investigation at its own level since such an issue is required to be ascertained during trial. The trial court is only required to see if prima facie offence, as alleged, is made out against the petitioners or not”, the judgment further read.

Resultantly, the bench dismissed the petition.