A cefixime sample with a fake origin: substandard or spurious?
A Drug Inspector of the State Drugs Control Administration, during a routine inspection of a retail medical store, draws a sample of Cefixime 200 mg tablets (batch CFX-2417, manufacturing date 11/2024, expiry 10/2026) from a stock of 42 strip packs. The store holds a valid sale licence and produces a purchase invoice from a city wholesaler. The State Drugs Testing Laboratory reports average content 84.6% of label claim (limit 90-110%), dissolution 61% in 45 minutes (Q = 80%), friability 1.8%, and chipped, unevenly coloured tablets. The carton declares 'Manufactured by M/s Apex Remedies, Roorkee', but the printed address carries a different PIN code from the one on Apex's licence, and the blister foil bears no batch coding. Apex Remedies states in writing that batch CFX-2417 was never manufactured by it and that the carton artwork is a copy of its own. The wholesaler's invoice shows purchase from an unidentified firm in another State at 38% below MRP. The retailer says he bought in good faith against a written warranty.
1. Classify this sample under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Should the case be built on section 16, section 17 or section 17A, and what penal exposure follows from your choice?
Read the worked answer
Three separate findings, three separate hooks.
- Section 16(1)(a) read with the Second Schedule: the drug does not comply with the standard in the Indian Pharmacopoeia (assay 84.6%, dissolution below Q). Standing alone this makes it not of standard quality.
- Section 17: the label is deficient and possibly carries false particulars, so misbranded is arguable.
- Section 17A(b): a drug is spurious when it purports to be the product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product. The manufacturer's written denial, the mismatched PIN code and the copied artwork each independently establish this.
Choosing the charge. Where a substandard result and fabricated origin coexist, the sample must be pursued as spurious. Section 16 is a quality failure; section 17A(b) is a deception about identity, which is the more serious and better-evidenced offence here. Charging only under section 16 would understate the case and cap the sentence.
Penal exposure. Manufacture or sale of a spurious drug falls under section 27(a): imprisonment of not less than ten years, extendable to life, with fine; the court may go below ten years only for adequate and special reasons recorded in writing. Sale of an NSQ drug under section 27A carries a far lighter maximum. This asymmetry is exactly why the classification decision matters at the very start of the case.
Practical caution. Do not abandon the section 16 finding. Plead it in the alternative, because if the counterfeit-origin evidence is successfully challenged at trial, the quality failure still secures a conviction.
2. Set out the sampling and follow-up steps needed to make this case legally sustainable, and identify the procedural errors that most often defeat such prosecutions.
Read the worked answer
Sampling discipline (section 23).
- Divide the sample into four portions, mark and seal each, and have the person from whom it is taken sign the receipt in the prescribed form (Form 17).
- Give one portion to the retailer, send one to the manufacturer with the prescribed intimation, send one to the Government Analyst with the memorandum, and retain one for production before the court.
- Pay or tender the price if demanded, and record the sampling in the inspection report with photographs of the packing, batch number and the stock position.
Follow-up. Seize the remaining 42 packs and the wholesaler's stock under section 22 powers; obtain invoices, purchase registers and transporter records to trace the unidentified supplier; record statements; ask Apex Remedies for a batch-manufacture and distribution certificate; move against the supplier in the other State through the concerned Drugs Control Administration.
Statutory sequence. The Government Analyst's report is evidence under section 25(1). The accused may, within 28 days of receiving it, notify an intention to contest, and the sample then goes to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, whose report is conclusive under section 25(3)-(4). A complaint must be filed by the Inspector under section 32 while the sample is still within shelf life.
Common fatal errors. Sending all four portions to the laboratory; seals not legible or not signed by the witness; failure to offer a portion to the retailer; no portion sent to the manufacturer; a court sample stored in a hot cupboard so that it degrades before trial; and delay such that expiry defeats the prosecution.
3. The retailer pleads the warranty defence. Evaluate whether it can succeed, and state what action you would take against the wholesaler and the store.
Read the worked answer
The defence under section 19(3) is available to a person who is not the manufacturer only if he proves that he acquired the drug from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form, that he stored it in the prescribed conditions, and that he had no reason to believe the drug was spurious or substandard.
Why it fails on these facts.
- The seller is an unidentified firm in another State; there is no evidence it is a duly licensed dealer, and no verifiable warranty runs from it.
- Purchase at 38% below MRP is a classic red flag; a reasonable pharmacist would have questioned it.
- Absence of batch coding on the blister foil is a visible defect on the pack itself.
- The carton carries an address inconsistent with the manufacturer's licence.
Each of these defeats the 'no reason to believe' limb. At best the warranty mitigates sentence; it does not bar prosecution.
Action against the wholesaler. He is the seller under section 18(a)(i); seize stock, take a further sample from his premises, examine his purchase and sale records for other batches of the same firm, and find out how many packs of CFX-2417 he has already distributed. His records are the only route to the true manufacturer.
Action against the retailer. Proceed, but proportionately: prosecute for sale of a spurious drug, and simultaneously refer the licence to the licensing authority for suspension under the conditions of the sale licence for failure to maintain proper purchase records and to exercise due diligence.
Public health angle. Issue a rapid alert to all districts in the State so that remaining packs are withdrawn from the market before they reach patients.