G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) Present petition is directed against the order of cognizance resorted to against the petitioners for the offences punishable under 16(1)(a), 17(c), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18B, 27(d) and 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, putting reliance upon the following authorities Medicamen Biotech Ltd. and Ors v. Rubina Bose, (2008) 7 SCC 196 , State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal and Ors, (1998) 5 SCC 343 , Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2017) CriLJ 2931 , Cadila Health Care Ltd. and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., (2007) CriLJ 1899 has contended that prosecution has presented the complaint before the court below at the verge of expiry of the shelf-life of the drug, as such petitioners deprived of their valuable right accrued to them to get the drug re-examined from Central Drugs Laboratory and has further contended that inspection was made on 23.04.2007, laboratory analyst report came on 12.06.2007 but complaint has lethargically been filed before the trial court in August 2009 and prior service of the notice, shelf-life of the drug got expired, resultantly petitioners have been deprived of exercising their valuable right, enunciated under the provisions of Section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act and willful lapse on the part of the prosecution has caused prejudice to the petitioners, so prosecution is not sustainable hence, order of cognizance passed by learned court below and consequent proceedings be quashed, besides, learned counsel has contended that it is the mandate of law that prosecution must come assigning precise role of the accused person/s responsible for the business of the unit, to whom responsibility for the breach could be fastened, but no specific role has been assigned to the accused-petitioners and on this sole ground proceedings are liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that drug sample has been found to be non-standardized, sample medicine was lacking prescribed potency/strength and was also not found to disintegrate, petition has been filed well in time, petitioners have not been subjected to detriment, petition lacks merit, so it be dismissed.
(3.) Heard submissions of both the sides and a thoughtful consideration was given to the material available on the record.;