Premium
This is an archive article published on May 12, 2010

RPG LS fined Rs 2 lakh

The Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on pharma firm RPG Life Sciences for selling a drug without printing the maximum retail price on its pack 25 years ago.

The Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs 2 lakh on pharma firm RPG Life Sciences for selling a drug without printing the maximum retail price on its pack 25 years ago.

With this order,the apex court has converted the three-month imprisonment awarded by the Madras High Court to the company’s production manager and its two distributors into fines.

An apex court bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Aftab Alam held RPG Life Sciences (earlier Searle India) liable for selling Haloperidol without printing the maximum retail price (MRP) on its pack.

Story continues below this ad

The case dates back to November 29,1985,when drug authorities found that 68 bottles containing 100 tablets of Haloperidol each did not have MRP printed on them. The drug is used in the treatment of acute mania,agitation and similar conditions.

The apex court said that RPG had violated rules mentioned in Para 20 of the Drug Prices Control Order (DPCO),1979,which mandate that any pharma firm has to mention MRP on the bottle or medicine pack.

“Hence,in this case,the accused (RPG Life Sciences and six others) come under the punishable offence as per Para 20 of the Drug (Prices Control) Order,1979,” the bench said,holding the pharma firm and its production manager guilty.

However,the court also observed that as the case dated back to May 1985 and was,therefore,an old one,”it may not be desirable to send them to jail after a lapse of about 25 years”.

Story continues below this ad

The apex court converted the three-month imprisonment awarded by the High Court to the RPG Life Sciences production manager and its two distributors into fines and directed them to deposit Rs 25,000 each.

It,however,extended the fine on RPG Life Sciences to Rs 2 lakh from Rs 10,000,as was directed by the High Court on June,2002.

“In the fact and circumstances of the case,we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if,while maintaining the conviction of the appellants,instead of sending them to serve three months’ imprisonment,the sentence of fine is substantially increased,” the court said.

The court’s direction had come from a petition filed by the pharma firm,which challenged the High Court order confirming a conviction passed against it by a trial court.

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement