The court has the power to direct further investigation if defects in the initial investigation are apparent, and such direction does not cause prejudice to the accused.

( 1 ) 1. As the points involved in these two revisional applications are identical, i intend to dispose of the revisional applications by a common judgment and order. Both these revisional applications arose out of Uttarpara P. S. Case No. 181 dated 27. 10. 02 and chargesheet No. 97 dated 3. 7. 03 submitted in the said case and the order dated 9. 7. 03 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate (in short SDJM), Serampore taking cognizance under section 279 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics act, 1940 (in short Act) against the petitioners challenging which the two accused persons separately preferred these two revisional applications for quashing the chargesheet and criminal proceeding.

( 2 ) IN C. R. R. No. 2465 of 2003 Dr. Bimal Kumar Kundu is the petitioner who is an accused in the aforesaid case against whom the chargesheet has been submitted under section 279 of the IPC read with section 27 of the Act. In c. R. R. No. 2803 of 2003 one Sudip Ghosh is the petitioner who is also an accused in the aforesaid case against whom chargesheet under the same sections as stated above has been submitted.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case as it appears from the FIR lodged by one Tarun kumar Bhattacharjee with the O. C. , Uttarpara P. S. is that, on 8. 10. 02. the de facto complainant had taken his minor son to the chamber of Dr. Bimal Kumar kundu who pushed Polio, DPT and HIB vaccine from his own stock inside the body of the child. After returning home the child became very sick and started vomiting and became seriously ill and he was taken to doctor known to the informant and after treatment the child was cured. The informant noticed that in the vial both manufacturing date and expiry date were interpolated and manufacturing date 31st August, 1999 was converted by pen into 2000 and expiry date August, 2002 was converted into 2003. On 17. 10. 02 the son of brother-in-law of informant was taken to same doctor for HIB vaccine and after Dr. Kundu pushed the vaccine it was found that in the said vial there was no mention of manufacturing date, batch No. and no price and only it contained expiry date. The informant learnt from Dr. Kundu that the said vaccine was supplied to him by one Sudip Ghosh, Senior Scientific Promotion Executive of M/s. Aventice pasteur. Accordingly, the informant lodged a complaint on 27. 10. 02 before the o. C. , Uttarpara P. S. alleging that the doctor has used expired vaccine by pushing into the body of minor child and on the basis of the said FIR Uttarpara p. S. Case No. 181 dated 27. 10. 02 under sections 274 and 275 of IPC read with section 27 of the Act was started. It further appears that after completing the investigation the police submitted chargesheet under section 279 of IPC read with section 27 of the Act against Dr. Bimal Kumar Kundu and Sudip Ghosh and on the basis of such chargesheet learned SDJM, Serampore has taken cognizance of offence of 9. 7. 03.

( 4 ) MR. Milon Mukherjee, learned Advocate in C. R. R. No. 2465 of 2003 contended that Dr. Kundu himself gave the vial of vaccine to the complainant. The doctor is ! nnocent and that is why after pushing the injection into the body of the minor baby of the complainant he gave the vial to complainant. He would not have handed over the vial to the complainant if he had any dishonest intention or guilty mind. Seizure list shows that two used vials were seized from the complainant and four vials were seized from Sudip Ghosh. The said vials were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for opinion as to whether the vaccine contained in the seized vials are spurious or misbranded. If after receiving the injection on 8. 10. 02 the son of the complainant became ill, why the complainant again sent his brother-in-law's son to same doctor for pushing the same vaccine. The I. O. did not send the vials to chemical examiner for testing and report. Section 16 of the Act defines standard qualit