At the charge stage, evidence demonstrating a case's absurdity permits consideration of defense materials of impeccable quality, overriding merely prosecution's reports.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners to set aside the Impugned Order dated 17.04.2018 of Ld. ASJ, upholding the Order dated 30.11.2015 of Ld. M.M. dismissing the Discharge Application filed by the Petitioners in a Complaint under Section 18(a)(i)/27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the “D&C Act”).

2. Briefly stated, a Criminal Complaint 12/2004 dated 09.02.2004 was filed under Section 18(a) (i)/27(d) of D&C Act. The averments made therein were that on 11.04.2002, the Complainant/Respondent Drug Inspector collected the sample of the drug “Tixylix” (Children Cough Linctus) Batch No.B-2024, D/M March, 2002, D/E February, 2005;Manufactured by M/s Nicolas Piramal India Ltd. (Accused No. 5) as per the procedure laid down under Section 23 of the D&C Act for the purpose of Test or Analysis from Accused No. 1 Kewal Bajaj, Proprietor and In-charge of M/s Kay Sons, Nangal Raya, New Delhi. Intimation of the collection of samples in Form-17, was given along with one sealed sample portion of the aforesaid drugs to Kewal Bajaj on the spot, who acknowledged the same vide his signatures on the Receipt.

3. On 12.04.2002, the Complainant sent one sealed sample of the drug to Central Indian Pharmacopeia Laboratory, Ghaziabad (CIPL) along with the Memorandum/Form-18 with sealed impression of the seal used to seal the Sample, by registered post parcel in accordance with Rule 57 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “D&C Rules”).

4. The Government Analyst, Ghaziabad gave its Report on 28.05.2003, which was forwarded to M/s Kay Sons, Nangal Raya on 19.06.2003. On 25.06.2003, M/s Kay Sons, Nangal Raya which gave a Reply informing that he had purchased the subject drugs from S.K. Gupta proprietor M/s Om Medical Agencies (Accused No.2), who in turn confirmed in writing that he had purchased the subject Drug vide Invoice No. 136 dated 01.04.2002, from M/s Mahavir Pharma Agency (Accused No.3) of which Rajiv Nanda (Accused No.4)was the partner. Rajeev Nanda further informed in writing on 04.07.2003 that its Firm i.e. M/s Pharma Mahavir Pharma Agency, had purchased the subject Drug vide Invoice No. 620376 dated 27.03.2002 from C&F Agent M/s G. K. Enterprises, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi (Accused No.5). Sh. Avinash Khanna (Accused No. 7), the Competent person approved the wholesale Drug license of C&F agent of Accused No. 7,holding his Power of Attorney and duly nominated by Accused No. 6 Vijay Shah, CEO of M/s Nicolas Piramal India Ltd. (Accused No. 5/Petitioner No. 1) informed in writing on 28.07.2003 that the subject Drug had been received vide Stock Transfer Note number 713139 dated 23.03.2002 at Indore, M.P. from their Depot at Wadhawan City, Gujarat. The Accused No. 5 to 7 were claimed to be manufacturing and selling spurious Drug which was not of standard quality, in contravention of the provisions of the D&C Act.

5. The Complaint f