SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.08/2014 whereby, the trial court directed framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences under sections 27(D) and 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
(2.) Shri Matoria advanced a solitary argument for challenging the order framing charge that no complaint was filed against the vendor of the drug which was allegedly manufactured by the petitioners. He submits that the manufacturing process was carried out in Haryana and as such, the complaint could not have been filed at Hanumangarh.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri Matoria, learned counsel representing the petitioner and have gone through the material placed on record. Suffice it to say that the offence alleged against the petitioner is of manufacturing and supply the substandard drugs which received sold in Hanumangarh. Thus, the court at Hanumangarh definitely has jurisdiction to try the case. So far as the argument regarding non-impleadment of the vendor is concerned, suffice it to say that the drug in question were found stored in the Government District Drug Center, Hanumangarh and as such, obviously the drugs were not stored in the said center for any commercial purposes so as to make the incharge of the said drug center liable for prosecution. The petitioners, being the manufacturer and the distributor of the drugs in question. They supplied the substandard drugs of the Government District Drug Center and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners is absolutely justified and cannot be questioned. As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order of framing charge dated 31.01.2017 passed by the learned court below.;