M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

1. This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the proceeding pending against the applicants in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane vide Criminal Case No.357/2011. The said criminal case has been filed against the applicants and accused No.4 by respondent No.2, who was working as a Drug Inspector, attached to office of the Joint Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Maharashtra State, Thane-400 604. Applicant No.5 is a registered firm. Applicant No.1 is a Managing Partner. Applicant Nos.1 to 5 were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in Criminal Case No.357/2011 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane.

2. The complainant/respondent No.2 had alleged that applicant No.5 had manufactured 'Bioclin, Prebiotic & Probiotics Sachets 1 gram', which were not of standard quality. It was alleged that total Viable count of Anaerobic Bacteria in the sample was less than the permissible limits. It is admitted position that applicant No.1 was Managing Partner of applicant No.5. Applicant Nos.3 and 4 were employees of applicant No.5 and applicant No.2 is a sleeping dormant partner of applicant No.5. The applicants do not challenge the collection of the sample from M/s Gayatri Agencies situated at Thane. The applicants, however, disputed the report of Government Analyst and wanted fresh analysis of one of the samples in custody of respondent No.2. The request of applicants was not considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and without getting the report of Central Drugs Laboratory a complaint has been filed against the applicants for the offence punishable under Section27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for alleged manufacture of sub-standard drug.

3. The issue raised by the applicants in the present application is very short. It has been contended that the applicants did not get opportunity of testing the second sample from the Central Drugs Laboratory. The sample was collected on 30-9-2010, Government Analyst's report was received on 24-2-2011 and complaint has been filed on 31-10-2011. The applicants have admittedly communicated to respondent No.2 that they were not satisfied with the report of the Government Analyst. It was submitted before this Court that the valuable right of the applicants available to them under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been infringed by respondent No.2 by filing the complaint as late on 31-10-2011. To understand the contention of the applicants, it would be just and proper to reproduce Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which runs as under :

"25.Reports of Government Analysts (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 sample.

(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by a Government Analyst under this Chapter shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and 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, within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in contravention 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