IMPORTANT POINT
The report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata was held to be conclusive evidence as per Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and it superseded the report of the Government Analyst, influencing the court's decision to quash the complaint.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of complaint no. 239/4 of 2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nalagarh, District Solan, titled Union of India versus Hetro Lab Limited. It has been asserted that the Drug Inspector, Baddi, drew sample of the drug Azilsartan Medoxomil tablet, on 15.03.2021, which was manufactured by M/S Hetro Labs Limited. The drug was sent to a Government Analyst, Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, and Chandigarh for testing and analysis, which issued a result stating that the sample did not conform to the claim as per the patent and proprietary with respect to the dissolution. One copy of the report was delivered to the petitioner in compliance with Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioners got the sample analyzed at their own end and found that it complied with the requirement. A complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court. The petitioners filed an application under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for sending the sample to the Central Laboratory, Kolkata for its analysis. The application was contested and the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The matter was carried in revision before this Court and a direction was issued to send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. A report was issued by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata stating that the drugs conformed to the manufacturer's specification with respect to the test for dissolution. The report of of Government Analyst has been superseded by the report issued by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkota; therefore, it was prayed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners be quashed.

2. The respondent filed a reply admitting that a drug sample was drawn and sent to the Government Analyst, Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh. The report stated that the sample did not conform to the claim as per patent and proprietary with respect to the dissolution. The complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act to challenge the report of the analyst, which was dismissed. A revision was filed before this Court, which was allowed and the sample was forwarded to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkota for analysis. The laboratory issued a report stating that the sample conforms to the manufacturer’s specification with respect to the test for dissolution. It was admitted that as per Section 25(4), the report the test of the analysis would be conclusive evidence. Hence, it was prayed that an appropriate order be passed in the present case.

3. I have heard Mr. N.S. Chandel learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent.

4. Mr. N.S. Chandel learned Senior Counsel submitted that the report of Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata superseded the report of the Government Analyst. The sample was found to be of standard quality and nothing survives for adjudication in the present complaint after this report. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court be quashed.

5. Mr Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central Government Counsel admitted that as per the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkota, the sample was found to be of standard quality. He prayed that appropriate orders be passed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

7. The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, (2023) 7 SCC 711: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 765 wherein it was observed at page 716:-

“17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to the quashing of a charge/proceedings either in the exerci