Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, No. 2, learned A.P.P. for the State.
(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. C3-114/2014, including the order, dated 14.03.2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/Ss. 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
(3.) The prosecution story based on the report filed by the Drug Inspector, Ranchi-1 is that on 29.08.2009 the sample of Absorbent Cotton Wool, IP Batch No. 6, Manufacturing Date June, 2009, Expiry Date May, 2012 was taken from the shop of M/s. Agrasen Pharma, S.N. Road, Ranchi in presence of its partner. The manufacturer of the Absorbent Cotton was shown as M/s. Cotex Surgical Corporation, Dumra Road, Sitamarhi. The sample was collected for its testing and analysis with Form 17. It is alleged that the Government Analyst, Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata vide its Test Report in Form 13 dated 05.03.2010 declared the sample to be sub-standard as it did not conform to IP 2007 with respect to the test for source active substance absorbency sinking time, water soluble substance and sulfated ash. It is further alleged that vide Office Letter No. 176 dated 13.03.2010, a copy of the Analysis Report was made available to M/s. Agrasen Pharma, S.N. Road, Ranchi with a direction to stop the sale. The purchase Invoice was demanded and the sold pieces were directed to be withdrawn from the market. It is also alleged that by the same letter information about the Test Report was furnished to the manufacturer, M/s. Cotex Surgical Corporation and they were requested to come and collect a copy of the Report. It is also alleged that M/s. Agrasen Pharma vide its letter received in the Office on 01.04.2010 intimated to the complainant that the copy of the Purchase bill was misplaced. Further allegation has been levelled that incompliance of the provisions contained in Section 23(4)(iii) one part of the sample was sent along with the analysis Report to the manufacturing company and its explanation was sought for. Since, the accused No. 1 could not produce the purchase bill the same was in violation of the provisions of Section 18(b) punishable u/S. 28(1)(a) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. It has been alleged that the manufacturing company has manufactured sub-standard drugs which is punishable u/S. 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. After the complaint was filed cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi on 14.03.2014 u/Ss. 27(d) & 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.;