JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The Drug Inspector received a telephonic complaint regarding discolouration of the powder in the vials of Rabcer Injection on 29.5.2010. He visited the Firm M/s Anil Medicos, Naya Bazar, Nahan. Anil Gupta was present on the premises. The Drug Inspector inspected the injection and found discolouration in many vials. He also noticed that the same batch had different coloured drugs in different vials and the colour ranged from off-white/yellowish white to brown. He obtained the samples and directed the owner to withdraw the unsold product from the market immediately. The samples were sent to a Government Analyst and were found to be not of the standard quality.

2. A notice was served upon the accused No.1 Anil Gupta under Section 25 to adduce evidence to controvert the report but no option was exercised. Accused no. 1 submitted invoices issued by M/s Astron Life Sciences, Ludhiana. This Firm disclosed the name of M/s Vision Medilink Ahmadabad, who in turn disclosed the name of M/s Embark Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Rurki. The Drug Inspector presented the complaint against the accused for trial. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, who framed the charge against the accused including the present petitioner for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. Aggrieved from the order, the present revision has been filed asserting that the maximum punishment provided for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27(d) is two years. The offence was stated to have been committed on 29.5.2010 and three years are available under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. for filing the complaint. The complaint was filed beyond three years. Therefore, it was prayed that the present revision be accepted and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge be set aside.

4. I have heard Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent-State.

5. Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of three years from the date of the commission of the offence. A valuable right of the petitioner to get the sample reanalyzed was extinguished. Therefore, he prayed that the present complaint be quashed.

6. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that the complaint was filed before the learned CJM on 23.5.2013. The involvement of the petitioner was discovered on 23.11.2010 when M/s Vision Medilink showed the documents regarding the production of the drug by M/s Embark Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. A notice was served upon the manufacturer on 8.12.2010, vide which the report was sent to the Firm. It was directed to withdraw the produce from the market and avail an opportunity under Section 25 to adduce evidence within 28 days, however, no intention was notified and the plea that the shelf life of the sample had expired, is not available to the petitioner. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

8. 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 SCC OnLine SC 765 : (2023) 7 SCC 711 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 exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397CrPC or Section 482CrPC or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarised by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kap