- (1.) The petitioners, who are distributors and dealers, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint No.89/2008 dated 09/13.05.2008 (Annexure P13) under Section 27(c) and 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the summoning order dated 13.5.2008 (Annexure P14) and all subsequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 20.08.2001, a sample of LAM Tablets (containing Alprazolam salt) bearing Batch No. 560, Manufacturing date:August 2001 and Expiry Date: July 2004, manufactured by M/s Mefro Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd for M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd, was taken from M/s R.N. Chopra and Sons at Phagwara Distt. Kapurthala by the then Drug Inspector along with his team, vide Form No. 17-A, after payment of Rs.90/- for which a bill was prepared. Thereafter, the sample was sent to the Government Analyst Punjab Chandigarh on 21.08.2001. On 14.05.2003, a report of the Government Analyst was received. This report was to the effect that the contents of Lam .25 Tablet were not having the contents of Alprazolam salt against the claim of .25 mg and therefore, the same was spurious in respect of the active ingredient of Alprazolam. On receipt of the report, the then Drugs Inspector, Kapurthala sent a notice to M/s R.N. Chopra & Sons on 02.06.2003 along with copy of Test report and intimated that they had purchased the medicine from National Medical Agencies, 9-B, Dilkusha Market Jalandhar, vide Bill dated 16.08.2001, whereupon a notice was sent to National Medical Agencies and they informed that they had purchased the drugs from M/s Aar Dee Enterprises, EK 219, Phagwara Gate, Jalandhar City, vide Bill dated 13.08.2001 and 12.09.2001 and accordingly notice was sent to M/s Aar Dee Enterprises on 12.08.2003 and they informed that vide letter dated 15.8.2003 they purchased the drug in question from the M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ultimately, the notice was sent to M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd at Chandigarh that the sample of the drug taken on 20.08.2001 was not of standard quality and misbranded and explanation was asked from M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd, to which the reply was filed on 03.10.2003 that the drug in question was being manufactured by M/s Mefro Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd F-68.
(3.) Thereafter, notice dated 03.02.2004 was sent to M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd c/o M/s Mefro Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd gave reply to the notice on 22.02.2004 with a request for getting the drugs retested from Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, as per the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Act. M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd in the meantime got tested another sample of the same batch bearing No. 560 from an government approved Laboratory under the Act on 11.05.2004. On 27.05.2004 almost three months after the request of M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd, an application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala with a prayer that the sample in question be sent to Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata for retesting under the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Act. As the drug validity was expiring, the complainant made an effort to serve M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd in the proceeding pending for retesting on 14.06.2004, 01.07.2004 & 16.07.2004. On 16.09.2004, the Drugs Inspector made a request that the application for retesting be withdrawn as the validity of the drug in question had expired in July, 2004. M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd thereafter got the demand draft No. 91384798 cancelled and the said amount was again credited to the account of M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd on 25.01.2005. After four years, the present complaint dated 09.05.2008 came to be filed under Section 18(a) (i) punishable under Section 27 (c) of the Act against M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd and other coaccused. Vide order dated 13.05.2008, M/s Tas Med (India) Pvt. Ltd has been summoned to face the trial.;