- (1.) THIS criminal application filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing and/or setting aside of the complaint in Criminal Case No. 148 of 1993, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class: Kudal, District Sindhudurg.
(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this application may be stated in brief:- THE petitioners are the manufacturers of drugs including Fenules capsules (Times Release Capsules Ferrous Sulphate with vitamins B and C complex ). On 28th April, 1992, the Drugs Inspector drew sample of the drug Fenules capsules manufactured by petitioner No. 4 from the premises of M/s. Anand Medical Stores at Kudal, District Sindhudurg. THE said sample was sent to the Government Analyst for analysis. THE Government Analyst vide his report dated-9th September, 1991 declared that the sample was not of standard quality. Inquiries made by the respondents disclosed that the said drug was supplied to M/s. Anand Medical Stores by B. R. Distributors having their place of business at553 MIDC District Ratnagiri. On these facts complaint came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Kudal on22nd June, 1993. On the same day, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners u/s 23 (4) (ii) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act for short ). It is the said complaint and the process issued thereon which is under challenge before this Court. I have heard at some length Mr. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Sabharwal, learned A. P. P. for State. With the help of the learned counsel I have gone through the relevant record. Mr. Desai's attack on the impugned complaint is two fold. Firstly he contended that the mandatory provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the respondents, which must necessarily result in quashing of the complaint. He then urged that the entire complaint does not attribute any role to petitioners nos. 1 to 3. In the complaint only their names and the position they hold in petitioner no. 4 company is stated. Therefore, the complaint does not disclose any offence against petitioners nos. 1 to 3 and hence on this count also the complaint deserves to be quashed.
(3.) I shall deal with the alleged breach of mandatory provisions of the Act. Admittedly the sample was drawn on28th April, 1992. The manufacturing date of the sample is January, 1992 and its expiry date is June, 1993. The sample was sent to the Government Analyst on7th May, 1992 and the report of the Government Analyst dated-9th September, 1992 was received by the Drugs Inspector on29th September, 1992. On 22nd June, 1993, the complaint came to be filed. On 28th of June, 1993, on behalf of the petitioners an application was made stating that the petitioners wanted the said sample to be got analysed from the Central Drugs Laboratory at Calcutta. It was averred in the said application that the Drugs Inspector had not supplied a sample to the petitioners as required under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, it was prayed that the sample which was in the possession of the Drugs Inspector, Kudal be called for and it be sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory at Calcutta.;