X EXAMCondensed Cross Examination
A- I did not mention the phone number of Maninder Singh in the docx submitted. I went to Sanjeevni Enterprises on 3/12/2014. I had gone for verification of the address of Sanjeevni Enterprises, but did not find Sanjeevni Enterprises at that address. Maninder Singh gave an undertaking in writing that Sanjeevni Enterprises were not their tenants. I am confident that Maninder Singh was tell in the truth.
Between the 01- 03 Dec 2014, I went to the drug department, Delhi for the enquiry of Sanjeevni. I received the docs. related to Sanjeevni from there. They told that the drug license of Sanjeevni had been cancelled. The documents received from there regarding Sanjeevni are in our office record. They have not been included in the annexures.
Q- Why didn’t you submit all the documents related to Sanjeevni Enterprises Received from the drugs department, Delhi in court?
A- Apart from Sanjeevni, I took the docx of some other parties too; out of these, some were submitted in court and some weren’t.
Q- Are there any other evidences apart from these which have been hidden by you?
A- No. whatever docx were there have been presented in court and other docx which were not considered important at the time of filing of complaint are kept in office records.
Q- Is it right to say that apart from the docx submitted, there are some more docx collected at the time of your enquiry which are kept in a file at your office and have not been submitted in court? Answer in Yes or No
A- Docx which was not considered important at the time of filing complaint are in the NCB office.
Q- 198 क/6?
A- This page is the duplicate copy of the drug license of Sanjeevni Enterprises given by the drugs department and attested by the drug inspector
Q- validity date of this license?
A- According to the document it is 08/06/2012 – 07/06/2017
A- According to doc no. 198 क/6 the license no of Sanjeevni enterprises is NW(0932)/12/W
Q- According to the drug control deapartment, did Sanjeevni exist between aug 2012 and feb 2013?
A- According to page no 198 क/3 – 198 क/13 received from the drug department Delhi, the license of Sanjeevni enterprises was valid between aug 2012 – feb 2013 and it existed too.
Q- Is it true that all voluntary statements taken by you have a head note written by you and are signed by you but on Maninder Singh’s statement neither is there a head note written by you , nor is it countersigned by you?
Q- Where is the voluntary statement of the sales Tax office’s executive regarding Sanjeevni Ent.?
A- I didn’t go to the Sales Tax office
Q- During the enquiry did you go to the transporter to verify the consignment notes received from Daffohils regarding despatch to Sanjeevni Ent and did you take their statement?
A- Keeping the facts found during the enquiry, I didn’t consider it necessary.
Q- When you don’t have knowledge of the law, then why did you proceed considering an illegal doc as evidence?
Q- What is the reason for your beleiving the statement of Maninder Singh despite having the notarised rental agreement, electricity bill, affidavit , Drug license, Rent receipt of Snjeeveni Ent.?
A- 1st floor Acharya Niketan , Mayur Vihar, Delhi.
A- On page 15 क/9, phase- 1 is not written after Mayur Vihar while on the docx received from the drug control dept, Delhi, annexed at 198 क/14 phase 1 is written after Mayur Vihar.
Q- When the address of Mehak Pharma stated on the invoice supplied by Daffohils on page 15 क/19 is Acharya Niketan then why did you send summon to Archana Niketan?
Q- According to the docx submitted by you between 198 क/14 and 198 क/25which are related to the license of Mehak Pharmaceuticals; was the license of Mehak Pharma valid and existing between Aug 2012 and Feb 2013?
A- Yes it was in Existence
A- that on 06/05/13 Mehak Pharma requested for surrender of its drug license.
Q- Please answer in yes or no if any customer of Daffohils has had its license forcefully cancelled?
Q- HP Pharma Haryana during investigation.
A- Yes it was taken.
Q- In his statement, did the owner of hp pharma accept that he legally conducted business with Mehak Pharma Delhi/ and did he submit all docx related to this business?
A- According to docx क/72, the proprietor of HP Pharma, Pradeep Singh had said that he had done business with Mehak Pharma and he gave copies of related docx like undertaking, purchase order, drugs license, copy of Pan card, copy of VAT registeration, copy of driving license, copy of invoiced consignment note
Q- When both the Delhi Drugs Control department and HP Pharma both proved the existence of Mehak Pharma with evidences then please explain why you tried to claim that Mehak didn’t exist by stating the wrong address?
Q- Except for looking for the incorrect address, during the enquiry of Mehak Pharma what other evidences have you added with the complaint?
A- Apart from address verification nothing else has been added with the complaint
A- Sri Ram Pharma
Q- when was Sri Ram Pharma closed?
A- Sri Ram Pharma was closed on 20/03/2013
A- During the enquiry I went to Mahaveer Enclave to look for Sri Ram Pharma but couldn’t find the address of Sri Ram Pharma and neither did any person verify the address. I tried to take written statement from people there but no one agreed to give a statement.
Q- Are there any other proofs attached with the complaint which can prove that between August 2012 and Feb 2013, Sri Ram Pharma was not available at that aforementioned address?
A- part from my verbal statement, the complaint filed by me on page क-73 also has my written statement which says Sri Ram Pharma’s address was not found
Q- Do you want to say that the complaint filed by you should be considered as proof that Sri Ram Pharma does not exist?
Q- Did you send a summons to Sri Ram Pharma for coming for the enquiry /if yes, why has it not been attached with the paperwork?
Q- Please explain the reason for not attaching the summons of Sri Ram Pharma considering that you have attached the summons of all other parties?
A- During the enquiry, the investigation done by me on the spot did not show Sri Ram Pharma and along with this the docx received from the drug department Delhi said that they couldn’t find the file of Sri Ram Pharma at the branch office and due to this whatever docx were received have been annexed with the paperwork submitted to court.
A- It is difficult say if the docx provided by Daffohils are genuine.
Q-Do you want say that the Delhi Drug Control Department and Sales Tax Department certified an invisible firm and issued licenses to it?
Q- Why are you lying when the complete bank a/c details of Sri Ram Pharma are available on page 120 क/16?
Q- What is the reason mentioned for the summons being returned?
Q- What is the meaning of “Left”?
A-It means left as in leave or gone
Q- During the enquiry did you go to Ranchi to verify the Drug license no and vat no. etc of Hari Om Enterprises?
A- I went to Ranchi to verify the address of Hari Om enterprises
A- January 2015
Q- When the postal department had clearly informed you that Hari Om Enterprises had “Left” that address then please state the reason for you going to verify this very same address?
Q- Please state the reason for not approaching the Drug Department, Postal department or the Police or the Sales Tax Department for help to verify this address?
A- I didn’t go to the Drug Department Ranchi.
Q- Please state the reason for not going to the Drug Department.
A- I didn’t consider it necessary at the time.
A- I used to convey these facts related with enquiry to my senior officer at the Dehradun Office.
Q- What docx and which licenses are required by a pharmaceutical distributor like Sanjeevani enterprises, Mehak Pharmaceuticals or Hari Om Enterprises to do legal business?
A- I cannot say which all licenses are required
Q- Did you go to Ryan Pharma at the time of enquiry?
Q- Did the proprietor of Ryan Pharma, Shadeb Ahmad give you his purchase register, sales register, emails etc?
A-The proprietor of Ryan Pharma, Shadeb Ahmad had shown me sales related docx but he did not show any emails nor did he submit any
Q- Did you find out during enquiry that Daffohils had dispatched the consignment to Ryan Pharma on door delivery basis through a reputed transport?
Q- Did Rajesh Mohan Salunke clearly state in his voluntary statement that Ryan Pharma was door delivered the consignment by a reputed transport Om logistics and that he has submitted the receipt to you.
A- In these he was only stated that the consignment sent to Ryan Pharma were through Om logistics but whether the conmsignment were received by Ryan Pharma or not
Q- When two people are giving two different statements wasn’t it your responsibility to uncover the truth by finding out the facts completely?
A- All the people who came during the questioning were accorded the freedom to put up their version based on the facts appropriate proceedings were done
Q- Did you verify the consignment notes submitted by Rajesh Mohan Salunke of DLPL which were related to the despatch of Ryan Pharma?
A- Expressed their inability to say whether the consignment reached Ryan Pharma or not and Ryan Pharma had denied receiving any consignments.
Q- Om logistics and the Sales Tax Check post?
A- During the enquiry after the investigation, I did not consider the remaining things important.
A- In this there is no payment shown made by Ryan Pharma Delhi.
Q- Ryan Pharma is still pending didn’t you suspect that Ryan Pharma is lying to avoid payments?
Q- which you seized without panchnama and did not annexe a number of these records with your complaint?
Q- How can it be found which docx were received from DLPL and which docx have been hidden or destroyed by you when you have no panchanama & no list of seized docx?
Q- Is it correct to say that as conspiracy money was taken from Ryan Pharma and they were assured that they won’t have to make the payment to DLPL because all the proofs have been destroyed and that’s how they can fearlessly give a fake statement saying that they didn’t receive the goods?
Q- How many tablets have been sent by DLPL to OPL?
A- DLPL sent 2 boxes of Robocoff tablets of batch no. DOR – 1003 i.e. 600 tablets
Q- What is the quantity of pseudoephedrine in these 2 boxes of Robocoff?
Q- When DLPL has sent 2 boxes of Robocoff tablets to Omega (OPL) which used 36 gm of pseudoephedrine in tablets from then why did you allege 1500 kg of pseudoephedrine on Omega?
Q- Where is the “maal-mukadma” (seizure) in this case?
Q- Do you want to say that NCB didn’t seize even 1 gm of pseudoephedrine raw material or even 1 tablet based on pseudoephedrine and did incomplete investigation and filed a complaint?
A- This is wrong to say. The matter is of diversion
Q- Explain the meaning of diversion
Q- What was sold in a wrong manner, tablets or raw material and to whom was it sold?
A- showed in its records that they made tablets but it wasn’t done and together with the above mentioned companies, raw material was diverted
Q- Please state the serial no. of the clause in which is said that the above mentioned companies were present and Daffohils diverted raw material with their connivance.
Q- To whom has been diverted, what has been diverted and how has it been diverted?
A- Daffohils Company used the above mentioned companies and diverted raw material
Q- To whom has diversion been done?
A- Since the above mentioned companies were not found on site so it is difficult to say to whom it has further been diverted
A- What I am saying is that Daffohils got together with the above mentioned companies and did the diversion.
Q- If this is so then why have the owners of the above mentioned companies not be made co-accused?
A- I have said earlier in my complaint that the aforementioned companies have only been shown on paper when actually they did not exist and Daffohils showed that the consignments had been sold to them and because of this reason I have said this that Daffohils did the diversion in connivance with these companies.
A- I have said this earlier also that Daffohils and these companies together did the diversion and also I want to say that the aforementioned companies were not found on their address that’s why it is difficult to say whether the consignments reached the said companies or not.
Q- Sometimes you are saying that these companies existed and Daffohils did the diversion together with them and sometimes you say that these companies did not exist. Which version should we consider true?
A- I have said earlier that the above mentioned companies are only shown on paper but they didn’t exist on land.
A- During investigation the statement taken from Ryan Pharma , the undertaking given by the son of the owner of BG-551, Sanjay Gandhi transport Nagar and the address verification done on site led to the deduction that Daffohils has diverted raw material.
A- In these, Maninder Singh said Sanjeevni enterprises never existed on his address and Shahdab Ahmad refused if any consignment has infact
Q- Apart from Ryan Pharma’s, Shahdab Ahmad and Maninder Singh do you have any other proof or evidence?
A- On 14/03/2013
Q- Then why did you say in the honorable High Court Nainital that you did not receive any consignment notes from Daffohils?
A- As far as I remember I didn’t say this after 17/02/2015
Q- You have also said in the honorable high court Nainital that a huge consignment has been seized from Manipur. What has been seized, how much and what is the value?
Q- What is the connection between the Manipur seizure and NCB?
A- The NCB headquarter was informed about the Manipur seizure by Manipur Police because NCB is the nodal agency in India for Drugs law enforcement due to which any procedure for seizure anywhere in India is reported to NCB headquarters.
A- Have not been charged with the seizure @ Manipur. Only the diversion which came to light during investigation is the charge upon the accused in this case by the NCB.
A- Shifting this controlled substance illegally somewhere, or transporting it.
A- In this the companies to whom it was shown to be sold are Sri Ram Pharma Delhi, Sanjeevani enterprises Delhi & Ryan Pharma Delhi
Q- Please explain the meaning of “selling in a fake way” and give details of how these tablets reached Manipur?
Q- Did the companies to whom Daffohils sold pseudoephedrine based tablets have drug license and sales Tax certificates etc?
Q- You had accepted during the previous cross-exam that the firms that had not presented themselves during investigation, their drug license were received by your own self from the Drugs Department which were valid at the time of their business with Daffohils. Then why are you now saying that you don’t know about the drug licenses of these firms.
A- During enquiry the firms which did not present themselves, out of these firms, the drug license of some firms were taken from the drug department and according to the records of the drug department , licenses were issued to some firms, but during the on-site investigation these firms were not found at their indicated address. Due to this it is difficult to say whether these firms had license or not.
A- According to the docx submitted by Daffohils and the Drugs Department, the firm had drug licenses.
A- All invoices received from Daffohils are included in the docx submitted in court
A- In the complaint, the accused have been charged with diversion of pseudoephedrine raw material.
A- NCB highlighted that Daffohils had shown that it had sold tablets to Ryan Pharma but during the investigation, it was found that no tablets reached this firm which indicates that Daffohils only showed that it manufactured tablets when actually it did not
Q- On the website of Om logistics transporters, who door received, the consignment of Ryan Pharma and the transporters receipts confirm the consignment being door delivered to Ryan Pharma. This confirmation is available till today also on their website. Why?
A- Whichever docx related to the case were considered important were submitted to the court with the complaint and the remaining docx are in the NCB Office Dehradun.
Q- Where are the transporter’s receipts related to all consignments sent by Daffohils?
A- We did not receive lorry receipts from Daffohils.
Q- Did you ask for lorry receipts from Daffohils at the time of investigation. If yes, then whom did you ask?
A- I had asked for the lorry receipts at the time of investigation. They were asked from the director of Daffohils at that time, Inderpal Singh Chawla.
Q- Are you aware of this fact that a lorry receipt is received from the transporter at the time of dispatching a consignment and that it can be verified from the website?
Q- Did you verify from the website of the transporter? Please state the reason if your answer is no.
A- It was verified from all these parties when they came for the investigation that whether they have received the consignments or not & they confirmed this too.
A- The parties to which Hilcold-T has been sold illegally are:-
M/s Sri Ram Pharma, Delhi
M/s Sanjeevani enterprises, Delhi
M/s Ryan Pharma, Delhi
Q- But you have stated in your statement & cross and the complaint that Sri Ram Pharma and sanjeevani ent. do not exist, them how can Daffohils sell Hilcold-T to these parties illegally?
Q- Has the Central Goverenment considered tablets Hilcold-T, which is a pseudoephedrine based medicines, a drug, a controlled substance or just a medicine?
A- A medicine in tablets form.
Q- Do you know that the Central Government has placed Pseudoephedrine based medicines in the category of essential medicines and that it regulates the MRPs of these medicines through Drug Price Control Order so that it is affordable for the common man to purchase it, who use this to cure from dangerous illnesses like flu and swine flu?
A- Yes, I know this
Q- Daffohils had purchased 4150 kg of pseudoephedrine which was used to manufacture 6,91,66,666 tablets which has been submitted on annexure no 7 क/1 – 7 क/5. Is this quantity correct according to you?
A- The annexures mentioned above state that 4150 kg of raw material was there and the tablets made from them were 6,91,66,667.67 and the process loss is shown as 0.69653012. since these facts have been provided by the director of the company sh. Inderpal Singh Chawla, so I agre with them.
Q- At the time of investigation did Sh. Inderpal Singh Chawla provide documentation related to the aforementioned quantity of raw material like Raw Material Consumption, stock utility Register, Batch Manufacturing Report, Batch Packing record, Laboratory reports, Third Party laboratory reports, Finished Goods Register, Quantity Return, Sale Invoices, Consignment Notes etc? did you peruse these documents
A- The documents which were received from Daffohils during enquiry like BMRs of all batches, stock Register, Consignment Notes and invoices had been checked. Some BMRs had laboratory reports while some did not.
Q- If Daffohils manufactured tablets from the complete quantity of 4150 kg then where did it get raw material to divert?
A- The parties to whom it has been shown that pseudoephedrine based medicines have been sent but actually have not been sent, the names of such parties is as follows:-
M/s Ryan pharma, Delhi- Hilcold-T,
M/s Sanjeevani enterprises, Delhi- Hilcold –T, Robocoff & robocoff B.
M/s Omega Pharma, Hyderabad- Robocoff
M/s Mehak Pharma, Delhi- Robocoff B & Robocoff
M/s Sri Ram Pharma, Delhi- Hilcold-T
Hari Om Enterprises, Ranchi- Robocoff B
A- I am saying that Daffohils did not make the batches as per the batch size shown but made lesser batches and the remaining raw material was wrongfully diverted. And they showed in their records that whole batches were made and sold.
Q- I am saying that you have not questioned any accused regarding manufacturing of batches and neither have you stated this in your complaint or chief statement. This is a new story you have made up first now so that you are saved from answering my question
. pseudoephedrine batch and party details
.register of consuption, sal, import and export of control substance)
.invoice cum delivery challan & consugnment note form 3
Q- Do you have any experience or knowledge about pharmaceutical manufacturing and batch making. If yes, where did you acquire this knowledge?
A- No, I did not have any knowledge of this beforehand
Q- Is it possible to take a batch of 60 gm on the existing machinery at Daffohils?
A- This I cannot say.
Q- When you don’t have the knowledge or the experience, why did you place allegation reffering to partial batches?
A- No, no such chart has been included. The value of 2873 kg was arrived at through BMRs.
Q- Do you know how to read a BMR(Batch Manufacturing Records)? If yes, what was the basis for quantity calculation of partial batches.
Q- If every tablet uses 60mg pseudoephedrine, how much is used for 3,24,000 tablets?
A- I have answered this question above.
Q- Have you just calculated this on your calculator?
A- Yes I calculated this as a calculator.
Q- You have estimated the wrong figure despite calculating on the calculator because 324000 tablets use 19.44 kg of pseudoephedrine. I am saying that you have no knowledge of batch quantity and you alleged 2873 kg quantity as per your wishes.
Q- Every BMR has been signed by the Manufacturing Chemisr, Analytical Chemist and the operator which proves that all tablets manufactured were from the total quantity. Did you ask about partial batches from the people who signed. If no, then please state reason.
Q- Tablets Hilcold –T Batch no. DHT-015 whose complete quantity was sold to Sanjeevani enterprises which according to you was never made; but as annexure no. 14 क/1 there is an analytical report of Acatel Reserch Laboratories, who has certified this batch by giving it an analytical certificate that the batch was manufactured and has been analysed bt them. Did you question them during the enquiry, please state reasons, if no.
Q- Do you know that every manufacturing has control samples?
Q- State the reason for not submitting in court the control samples of each batch taken as evidence related to pseudoephedrine made by Daffohils taken by your NCB Office during the investigation
Q- I am saying that you deliberately did not submit the control samples in court because the control samples could prove that all the batches were made and your allegations would have been proved false.
A- I dont know about the website. during the field verification, I found the address wrong.
Q- According to you, all manufacturers should not do business with their customers, whether they are in Kashmir or Kerala, without field verification and not on the basis of confirmation received from a government website
Q- Did you question the accused regarding sale of raw material?
A- Ryan Pharma did not submit any kind of stock register
A- Also if any person is found doing illegal business of controlled substance he can also be tried under section 9A of NDPS Act.
Q- Have the accused been alleged with the violations of RCS order 1993 and charged under sec 9A of NDPS Act?
Q- Which clause of RCS order 1993 has been violated.
Q- Have you mentioned in your complaint which clause of RCS order has been violated by daffohils?
A- The complaint does not mention any particular clause of RCs oder 1993 which was violated. It just refers to the RCS order 1993.
Q- Does the RCS order 1993 mention diversion?
A- There is no mention of diversion in the RCS order 1993.
Q- The Press Release given by NCB said that in the enquiry requested by you from them, the enforcement directorate could not find any variations. Have you deposited this report in court. If no, please state reasons.
A- Enforcement Directorate did not hand over any report to the NCB related to the enquiry related to Daffohils.
Q- Is it correct to say that the previous investigation officer Sh. Vivek K. Pandey refused to place his name on a fraudulent case and that’s why this case was given to you?
Q- K. Venkat Reddy was called to the dehradun office in the pretext of enquiry and he was kept hungry – thristy the whole day and he was tortured at 1am at night in the name of statement and a statement was taken from him till 4am in the morning
A- They included BMR, and some emails which were suspicious and apart from this the field verification also showed a lot of facts.
Q- Do any of the emails sent by the accused have conversations regarding raw material diversion?
Q- Can a company direct/instruct its debtor to make a direct payment to its creditor through journal voucher and is it correct according to law?
A- This I cannot say.
Q- Is it correct to say that in October 2014 your superintendent wrote a letter to the NCB Zonal Office and in the letter he also spoke of filing a complaint against sh. Mani Iyer & sh. Kejriwal?
Q- I am saying that Mani Iyer & kejriwal did business with Daffohils and did sales booking for Hilcold-T for all parties including Sanjeevani Enterprises and during the enquiry they were threatened & intimidated and money was taken from them and then they were not made part of the fraudulent case.
A- This is wrong to say.
Q- Was Inderpal Singh Chawla absconding during the enquiry?
Q- What was time period during which Daffohils manufactured pseudoephedrine based medicines?
A- The period chosen during the enquiry for manufacture of pseudoephedrine based medicines was sep 2012- feb 2013. This was the period for which enquiry was done.
Q- Please state the reason for limiting your enquiry to Feb 2013
Q- You have stated repeatedly in your statement that this enquiry is a separate case so please state the reason for limiting your enquiry to Feb 2013.
A- I am still saying that this is a separate case and using the report of the Manipur Police as information this enquiry was done.
Q- Were Inderpal singh Chawla & Colette Smith in a dispute over Daffohils?
A- Since this incident has nothing to do with the current case, so I cannot say anything in this matter.
Q- I am saying that you limited your enquiry to feb 2013 as till feb 2013 Colette Smith was present in Daffohils and after that Daffohils went into the hands of Inderpal Singh Chawla and that’s why you gave a clean chit to Inderpal Singh Chawla despite his being a director of Daffohils as per ROC.
A- This is wrong to say.
Q- After submitting the first complaint in February 2015, your Lucknow Office gave orders for cancellation of the GRN no. of Daffohils in April 2015 which was not followed by you. Please state reason.
A- This is an internal matter of the department and I cannot comment upon this
Q- I am saying that your superintendent Ravi K. Rana on whose instruction you made this fraudulent case has been suspended by your department on charges of trying to extort money from other manufacturers of pseudoephedrine in Uttarakhand by scaring them of putting fake cases on them.
A- I cannot comment upon this
Q- I am saying that all parties to whom Daffohils sold pseudoephedrine based medicines they all had Drug licenses, sales Tax etc certifications which you knew before you submitted the complaint in court
A- This is wrong to say.
Q- I am saying that NCB Dehradun trapped the accused with the motive of extortion.