Nirmaljit Kaur, J. - (1.) THIS is petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dt. 28.06.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Revision Petition No. 24/2002, vide which, the Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners and upheld the order dt. 28.01.1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sec. 17 -A read with Section 27 -B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1940"). The facts in short are that the Drug Inspector seized the medicine by name "Relax U tablet" from petitioner -M/s Anil Medical Store on 24.10.1989. The expiry month of the said drug was June, 1990. The medicine was sent for chemical examination on 20.12.1989 and the report was received on 20.03.1990. As per the report of the Medical Analyst, the drug was stated to be "in bad condition and unfit for human consumption". The petitioners were never sent the report of the Chemical Analyst as required under Sec. 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act of 1940.
(2.) WHILE praying for setting aside the orders impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been deprived of their statutory right as enshrined under Sec. 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act of 1940 as the chemical examination report was not made available to them. Secondly, it is contended that the alleged offence is punishable for a maximum sentence of three years. The complaint, as per the provisions of Section 268 Cr.P.C., having been filed after the period of three years is barred by limitation. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner is protected under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act of 1940. Heard.
(3.) THE petitioners herein are the distributor and retailer. There is no allegation in the complaint that the said drug was tampered with. It is also not stated in the complaint that the drug at the time of purchase was not properly stored or was in a state that it was altered after purchase. Section 19(3) of the Act of 1940 reads as under: - - 19(3) -A person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of Section 18 if he proves - (a) that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of that Section; and (c) that the drug or cosmetic, while in his possession was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it.;