1. - Instant Misc. Petition Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against taking cognisance of offences under Sections 27(b)(i), 27(c) and 27(d), for contravention of provisions in Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c) read with Section 16(1)(a), 17(c), 17-A(f). 170-B(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ("the Act") vide order dated 29.7.1997 and summoning petitioners (accused Nos. 5. 6 and 7 in Cr. Complaint No. 23) 291/9-7 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar.

2. Petitioners (accused No.5, 6 & 7 in complaint) are Directors of' Welcome Pharnmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (accused No.3) ("Company"), engaged in selling and distributing drugs and medicines manufactured in factory of M/s. Welcome Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (accused No. 8) situated at A-1129, RIICO Industrial Area. Phase-III. Bhiwari (Alwar).

3. On 23.03.1995, Drugs Inspector, Alwar visited Bansal Medical Store (Pharmaceutical Distributors) Industrial Area, Bhiwadi (Alwar) and purchased 4 x 100 Tablets of Oxyphenbutazone vide bill No.4887/ dated 23.03.95 having Batch No. T-117, manufacturing date November, 1994 and Expiry date October, 1997, and divided it into four equal parts in the form of its sample and thereafter sealed it accordance with Rules - one sample whereof was sent for analysis to the Public Analyst, Rajasthan, Jaipur, who in its report dated 15.09.1995 opined that sample does not conform to the claim with respect to assay of Oxyphenbutazone as it contains phenylbutazone- Oxyphenbutazone found 64.69 mg. Claim 100 mg. Phenylbutazone claim Nil found 37.84 mg.A copy whereof alongwith one sample vide show cause notice dated 04.10.1995 through registered post was sent by Drugs Inspector to the Company (accused No.3) and Brij Mohan Bansal Prop.. Bansal Medical Store (accused No.1) who in response informed that sample of drugs was purchased from M/s. Welcure Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (accused No.31 vide bill dated 23.03.1995-copy whereof was sent along with letter dated 14.10.1995 while acknowledging analyst report dated 15.09.1995. The Company (accused No.3) controverted State analyst report dated 15.09.1995 and requested for sending referee sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta-as per its analyst report, sample was found to be misbranded under the Act as is evident from letter No.252 dated 28.05.1996 referred to in letter dated 09.04.1997 (p. 111 of the record) which is written sanction from competent authority and accordingly, Drugs Inspector filed complaint on 29.7.1997 for prosecution against petitioners as well as other accused for offences (supra). However, complaint was registered and learned Magistrate took cognisance of offences (supra) and issued process against petitioner (accused No.5, 6 and 7) and other accused vide order dated 29.07.1997. Hence this petition.

4. Basic grievance raised by petitioners in instant petition is that petitioners are only Directors of M/s. Welcome Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (accused No.3) which has purchased sample of drug from manufacturing company (accused No. 8) and then sold it to Bansal Medical Store (accused No.1) from whom sample was taken by Drugs Inspector. Counsel submits that there is not a shred of evidence in the complaint against petitioners as to how and in what manner they were in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the distributing Company (Accused No.3) at the time of commission of alleged offences, or the petitioners as Directors of the Welcure Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. have committed alleged offence and in absence of necessary ingredients as required by Section 34(1) of the Act being disclosed in complaint, a vague reference of responsibility is not sufficient compliance of requirement under Section 34 of the Act; therefore, very cognisance taken of offences (supra) against petitioners vide order impugned is not legally sustainable. In support. Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram K. Rohtagi AI