Jitendra Kumar, J.—learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present petition under Section 482 Cr. PC has been preferred by the Petitioner for setting aside the order dated 4.8.2015 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, in Complaint Case No.C-II 14 of 2015 whereby the Ld. Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 27(d) read with Sections 16 and 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. As per the Official Complaint bearing No. 14 of 2015 filed by Drugs Inspector, Maharajganj, Siwan, against six accused persons including the Petitioner, Proprietor M/s. Quality Drugs House, alleging that during inspection of P.H.C. Basantpur, Siwan on 12.03.2010, sample of Antisnake Venom Antiserums I.P (Lyophilized), B. No. A5307024, manufactured by Bharat Serums & Vaccine Ltd., was collected by Drugs Inspector, Siwan and was sent to CDL/CRI, Kasauli, in the prescribed Form for test and analysis. As per the test report, the sample of the drug seized during inspection was found to be “of not standard quality in respect to neutralization of Kobra venom”. The report was received from the Government analyst vide letter No. CDL/2010/3876 dated 23.6.2010. In pursuance of the report from the analyst, Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited was informed and requested to explain the same vide letter No.497 dated 31.08.2010 of Drugs Inspector’s Office and same was communicated to higher Authorities for further action.

4. The Official Complaint by Drugs Inspector, Siwan, was lodged in the court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 1.8.2015 wherein the impugned order has been passed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State.

6. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act is not sustainable. He submits that the maximum punishment as provided under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is two years. Hence, as per provisions of Sections 468(2)(C) Cr.PC, the limitation period will be three years. He also submits that as per Section 469(1)(b), the limitation period commences from the date of knowledge to the officials concerned regarding commission of the offence by the accused. In this context, he refers to and relies upon State of Rajasthan vs. Sanjay Kumar and Others (1998) 5 SCC 82. He further submits that as per complaint, the knowledge regarding the offence has come to the officials subsequent to receipt of the test and analysis report from the CDL/CRI, Kasauli vide letter No. 497 dated 31.08.2010. The knowledge of the offence also transpires from the letter dated 13.10.2010 written by the Drugs Inspector, Siwan to Bharat Serums and Vaccines Limited seeking explanation regarding the report. As such, maximum period of three years expired on 31st of October, 2013, but the complaint has been filed on 01.08.2015 i.e. after expiry of about 2 years of the limitation. He also submits that the delay has also not been condoned. Hence, Ld. Magistrate was debarred for taking cognizance and impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to set aside.

7. However, Ld. APP for the State defends the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or impropriety committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order.

8. I perused the material on record and considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.

9. As per the facts and circumstances of the case, the alleged offence is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but it may extend to two years and with fine and it shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees. Hence, in view of Section 468(2)(C) of the Cr.PC, 1973 the period of limitation is 3 years. Section 468(1) of the Cr.PC also provides that exce