KHAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riots), Kota, in criminal cases No. 2160/92 State vs. Chetan Medicals & Ors.-U/ss. 27 (B) 1, 27 (C) and 27 (D) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940) (for short `the Act of 1940 ). By his order dated 23. 11. 95 the learned Magistrate framed charges for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and such order of the learned Magistrate has also been confirmed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 397 Cr. P. C.
(2.) SINCE the legality and validity of the order of the learned Magistrate was noticed to have been examined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his concurrent revisory jurisdiction and a second revision of the same order is barred by the provisions U/s. 397 (2) Cr. P. C. I heard the learned counsel for the parties with a view to know and satisfy myself as to whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers of this court under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. After examining the relevant orders, I am satisfied that the case involves no abuse of the process of the court of the learned Magistrate and his order occasions no injustice to the petitioner. On 30. 4. 1988 the Drugs Inspector purchased the requisite quantity of Ashok liquid Extracts, manufactured by the present petitioners, from M/s. Chetan Medical Stores, Kota, and prepared four samples therefrom as per requirement of the provisions of the Act of 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. The sample forwarded by the Drugs Inspector to laboratory for chemical analysis was reported to be misbranded, adulterated and containing spurious substance. On query from the seller, the Drugs Inspector came to know that M/s. Chetan Medical Stores had purchased the said drug from M/s. Suraj Medicals Kota, which was the duly authorised distributor of the said drug. The Drug Inspector, therefore, sent one of the samples alongwith a copy of the report of the analyst to the said distributor. The licensed distributor informed the Drugs Inspector that he had obtained the said drug in sealed condition from the present petitioners and had sold the same to M/s. Chetan Medical Stores in that condition. The Drugs Inspector had purchased the said drug from M/s. Chetan Medical Stores in sealed condition. Based on the above facts the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint against M/s. Chetan Medical Stores, Kota, and its partners (Accused Nos. 1 to 4), M/s. Suraj Medicals, Kota, and its partners (Accused Nos. 5 to 8) and M/s. Amrey Pharmaceuticals Karnal (Haryana) and its proprietor (Accused Nos. 9 to 10 respectively the present petitioners ). The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the afore-mentioned offences on the basis of the complaint filed by the public servants and summoned all the above-mentioned 10 persons (including the present petitioners) as accused thereunder. After recording the evidence of PW. 1 R. S. Thakar and PW. 2 R. C. Choudhary, the Drugs Inspectors before charge and after hearing the parties the learned Magistrate discharged accused Nos. 1 to 8 (as mentioned above) but charged the present petitioners of the offences stated above. It was vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners that by not delivering a sample of the drug alongwith the copy of the Govt. Analyst to the present petitioners the Drugs Inspector violated the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 18a, 23 and 25 of the Act of 1940 and therefore the order of framing of charges for offences U/s. 27 (B) (i), 27 (C) and 27 (D) against the petitioners was bad in law, amounts to abuse of the process of court and causes gross injustice to the petitioners. In this behalf reliance was placed on the Division Bench decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Kiran Dev Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1 ). I however find no force in this argument. Sections 18a, 19 (3), 23 and 25 of the Act of 1940 read as under: " Sec. 18a : Disclosure of the name of manufacturer etc. Every person, not being manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall, if so required, disclose to the Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. Sec. 19: Pleas - (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 - (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 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. Sec. 23 : Procedure of Inspectors- (1) Where an Inspector takes any sample of a drug or cosmetic under this Chapter, he shall tender the fair price thereof and may require a written acknowledgment therefor. (2) Where the price tendered under sub-Section (1) is refused, or where the Inspector seizes the stock of any drug or cosmetic under clause (c) of Section 22, he shall tender a receipt thereof in the prescribed form. (3) Where an Inspector takes a sample of drug or cosmetic for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes it and, in the presence of such person, unless he wilfully absents himself, shall divide the sample into four portions and effectively seal and suitably mark the same and permit such person to add his own seal and mark to all or any of the portions so sealed and marked: Provided that where the sample is taken from premises whereon the drug or cosmetic is being manufactured it shall be necessary to divide the same into three portions only: Provided further that where the drug or cosmetic is made up in containers of small volume, instead of dividing a sample, as aforesaid, the Inspector may, and if the drug or cosmetic be such that it is likely to deteriorate or be otherwise damaged by exposure, shall take three or four, as the case may be, of the said containers after suitably marking the same and where necessary, sealing them. (4) The Inspector shall restores one portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he taken it, and shall retain the remainder and dispose of the same as follows: (i) one portion or container he shall forthwith send to the Government Analyst for test or analysis; (ii) the second he shall produce in the court before which the proceedings, if any are instituted in respect of the drug or cosmetic; and (iii) the third, where taken, he shall send to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18-A. (5) Where an Inspector takes any action under clause (c) of Section 22,- (a) he shall use all despatch in ascertaining whether or not the drug or cosmetic contravenes any of the provisions of Section 18 and, if it is ascertained that the drug or cosmetic does not so contravene, forthwith revoke the order passed under the said clause or, as the case may be, take such action as may be necessary for the return of the stock seized; (b) if he seizes the stock of the drug or cosmetic, he shall, as soon as may be, inform a Judicial Magistrate and take his orders as to the custody thereof; (c) without prejudice to the institution of any prosecution, if the alleged contravention be such that the defect may be remedied by the possessor of the drug or cosmetic, he shall, on being satisfied that the defect has been so remedied, forthwith revoke the order under the said clause. (6) When the Inspector seizes any record, register document or any other material object under clause (cc) of sub-section (1) of Section 22, he shall as soon as may be, inform (a) Judicial Magistrate and take his order as to the custody thereof. Sec. 25 : Report of Government Analysis- (1) The Government Analyst to whom a sample of any drug or cosmetic has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (4) of Section 23, shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form. (2) The Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and another copy to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18-A, and shall retain the third copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the samples (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government Analyst under this Chapter shall be evidence of the facts stated therein such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken or the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18-A has, writing to the Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that it intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has, under sub-section (3), notified his intention to adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst's report, the court may of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused, cause the sample of the drugs or cosmetic produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of Section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make a test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Drugs Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or accused as the court shall direct. "
(3.) A combined reading of Sections 18a, 19 (3), 23 (4) (iii) and Sec. 25 (2) discloses that every person who is not the manufacturer of the drug or cosmetic or his agent for distribution thereof, is under a statutory obligation to disclose, when so required, to the Drugs Inspector the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drug or cosmetic. Once such a person discharges his obligation U/s. 18a, Sec. 23 (4) (iii) r. w. Sec. 25 (2) makes it obligatory upon the Drugs Inspector to send one of the samples to the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed by the seller of the drug or cosmetics U/s. 18a alongwith a copy of the report of the Govt. Analyst. Sub-sec. (3) of Section 23 requires the Drugs Inspector to divide the sample, purchased by him from the seller, into, at the most, four portions and effectively seal and suitably mark them. Of the four samples, one is to be restored to the seller, the second to be sent to the Govt. Analyst for chemical examination, the third to be produced in the court, in case a complaint is filed, and the fourth, where taken, is to be sent to the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed upon the Drugs Inspector U/s. 18a. The delivery of the samples by the Drugs Inspector to different persons/authorities in that manner clearly suggests that the fourth sample alongwith the copy of the report of the Govt. Analyst is to be sent or delivered to either the manufacturer of the drugs or cosmetics or to his agent for distribution thereof and not to both. This position has been made quite clear by the legislature by use of the expression "not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetics or his agent for distribution thereof" in the language of Section 18a itself. This interpretation also fits in the scheme underlying Sections 18a, 19, 23 and 25 of the Act 1940. It is, therefore, held that the fourth portion of the sample of the drug or cosmetic is to be delivered, sent or forwarded alongwith the report of the Govt. Analyst by the Drugs Inspector either to the manufacturer of the drug or cosmetic or his agent for distribution thereof and not to both. In the instant case the evidence recorded before charge clearly disclosed that M/s. Chetan Medical Stores, Kota, was the seller of the sample of Ashoka Liquid Extracts, that M/s. Chetan Medical Stores had purchased the said drug from M/s. Suraj Medicals Kota in sealed condition; and that was the name of the person disclosed by M/s. Chetan Medical Stores, Kota, to the Drugs Inspector U/s. 18a, that M/s. Suraj Medicals Kota was the licensed distributor of the said drug; that the petitioners were the manufacturer of the said drug; that on chemical analysis the said drug was reported to be misbranded, adulterated and containing spurious substance by the Government Analyst and that the Drugs Inspector had duly sent/delivered one of the sample portions alongwith the report of the Govt. Analyst to M/s. Suraj Medicals, Kota, which was the agent of the petitioners for the distribution of the said drug. On such facts the learned Magistrate was fully justified in law in framing charges for offences U/s. 27 (B) (i), 27 (C) and 27 (D) of the Act of 1940 against the petitioner. Therefore, neither any abuse of the process of the court is noticed nor any injustice is seen to have been caused to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case before their Lordship of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the question which was raised before and decided by me was not raised before and considered by their Lordships. That case, therefore, affords no help to the petitioners in this case. ;