1. ' Z. A. CHANNA (CHAIRMAN).-Accused Khalil Ahmed, who is the Managing Director of Messrs Chas A.
2. Mendoza, while the 3 remaining accused are the Directors of the said Company, stand charged with having manufactured for sale a drug, namely, rutine compound tablets, Batch No,
05. HU, which drug was sold to Messrs Dawn Drug Agency, Hyderabad under a cash bill/invoice/warranty, dated 9-12-1976, and which warranty is found to be false and the/drug found to be sub-standard, and thereby committed offences punishable under section 23(1) (a) (v) read with section 27 (iv) of the Drugs Act, 1976, and section 27 (ii) (b) of the said Act.
3. ' The accused had originally not pleaded guilty to the charge, but today, before any witness for the prosecution could be examined, an application has been filed on behalf of the accused pleading guilty and admitting the offences with which they stand charged. It has been contended in their application today that the accused are only vicariously liable under the provisions of section 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976, but the main responsibility is of the Production Manager and the Quality Control Department of their firm, who are practically independent of the manufacturing units of the factory, In support of this contention, Mr. Hussain Shah Itashdi, the learned counsel for the accused, relied upon the provisions of clause (e) of the Drugs (Licensing, Registering and Advertising) Rules, 1976, which provide that the Quality Control Department shall be independent of the manufacturing units and its incharge shall be a whole time employee of the manufacturer and shall possess a degree in Pharmacy or a degree in science with Chemistry, or a degree in medicine, microbiology, pharmacology or bacteriology; and shall be independent of the incharge of the manufacturer (production units). It was further submitted by the It learned counsel for the accused that inasmuch as the accused ate not technically qualified in the manufacture of drugs and their educational qualifications extend only upto Matric and Intermediate, they could not reasonably be aware of the details of manufacture of different drugs and the amount of active ingredients incorporated in the different medicines manufactured by their firm. His submission, in other words, was that the accused were practically dependent wholly on their Quality Control Department for the amount of active ingredients which were to be incorporated in the medicines manufactured by them. The learned counsel has produced before us two reports from their Quality Control Department which indicate that of the drugs in respect of which accused have been prosecuted and have now pleaded guilty, were certified by the Quality Control Department of their firm to be upto the required standard.
4. ' Mr. Hussain Shah Rashdi has also produced the Manufacturer's Licence of a Pharmaceutical Company, issued under the Drugs Act 1976, which mentions only the names of the Quality Control Incharge and the Production Manager and not the names of the Directors. This fact according to the learned counsel, indicates that the primary responsibility for the quality and the standard of a drug were that of the Production Manager and the Quality Control Incharge, and not that of the Directors, who are merely over al responsible for the working of the factory.
5. ' We consider that there is force in the contention of the learned counsel and in the circumstances are of the view that the offence committed by the accused would be really a technical one. We would accordingly, while accepting the plea of guilty of the accused, convict them thereof and impose on each one of them a fine of Rs, 1,000 (one thousand rupees) in respect of each of the two counts, namely a fine of Rs, 2,000 (two thousand) upon each of the accused. In default of the payment of fine the accused shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The accused are allowed one week's time to pay the fine.