1. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C. No.466/2007 pending on the file of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM. Dharwad. (hereinafter reffered to a ‘CJM” for short) have filed the present petition U/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashin of entire proceedings in the said case. These petitioners accused are alleged to have committed the offence U/Sec.18(a)(i) r/w.Sec.27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D and C Act’ for short).

2) Stated in brief the facts leading to the present petition are as under:

.(a) One Sri. N. V. Raghuram, the Drugs Inspector. Dharwad. Filed his private compliant U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. against all the petitioners herein alleging that petitioner No. 1 namely M/s. Alpha Laboratories Limited, manufactured sub-standard quality of Lignocaine Hydrochloric Injection IP 2% and supplied the same to the office of the Deputy Director. Veterinary Services and Animal Husbandry, Dharwad, (hereafter referred to as “DD Veterinary” for short) for the purpose of distribution among the Veterinary Hospitals in the District and thereby committed the offence U/Sec. 18(a)(i) which is punishable U/Sec.27(d) of D and C Act.

.(b) Further case of the complainant is that, petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 4, the Directors of 1st petitioner company, being responsible for the day-today business of the 1st petitioner Company; petitioner-accused Nos. 5 and 6 being employed respectively as Chemist & Analytical Chemist in the said company; and petitioner-accused No 7 being a person in charge of the said company, all committed the said offence.

.(c) Since the said complaint was filed by the public servant, recording of his sworn statement came to be dispensed with and the learned CJM took cognizance of the said offence on the said compliant and issued process against all petitioner-accused Nos. 1 to 7 for the said offence. Accordingly the said case came to be registered against them all.

3) All further proceedings in the said case are sought to be quashed on the following grounds:

(i)The provisions of Sec.23(3) of D and C Act are not complied with by the complainant Drugs Inspector while drawing the sample inasmuch as, sample should have been drawn in Form No.17 but the Drugs Inspector has drawn it in Form No.17-A.

(ii) The Deputy Director. Veterinary and Animal Husbandry (DD Veterinary), who obtained from 1st petitioner-company the drugs in question for the purpose of distributing the same among Veterinary Hospitals in the District has not been arraigned as one of the accused and therefore, in the absence of he said Director, who has been local vendor, the 1st accused company which has its manufacturing activities at Indore (M.P.) which is admittedly beyond the local jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Could not be prosecuted before the learned CJM at Dharwad.

(iii) The sanction obtained by the complainant Drugs Inspector for prosecuting petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 is not a valid sanction and therefore the very taking of the cognizance of he said offence against all the petitioners-accused is bad in law and hence the entire further proceedings in the said case deserve to the quashed.

.(iv) Issuing of process against petitioner-accused Nos. 2 to 4, the Directors of 1st petitioner company, cannot be sustained inasmuch as, they were not responsible for the day-today business of the company and therefore process issued against them is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec.34 of D and C Act.

.(v) Issuing of process against petitioner-accused No.7 Pradeep Soni is not justified inasmuch as, there is no specific allegation against him in the said complaint as to in what capacity he was responsible to the affairs of the company at the relevant time of manufacturing of the drug in question.

4) Referring to each of the above grounds, Sri. G.R. Andanimath, the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused strongly contends that the laearned CJM Committed serious error in issuing process against the petitioners