The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions in the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, particularly Sections 23 and 25, and the consequences of non-compliance with these provisions.

1. Petitioners Vice President-quality ( South Asia ) M/S Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and C & F agent respectively have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C for quashment of a criminal complaint titled “Drug Inspector vs. Devinder Kakkar and others” against them pending before the Court of Second Additional Munsiff, Jammu.

2. In the petition, it is stated that respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu which was transferred to the Court of Sub Registrar, Jammu u/s 18(2) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. In the complaint it was alleged that a sample of Cobadex Capsules being Batch No.M.D-439 M/s Glaxosmithklin Pharmaceuticals Ltd., works address 49 (B&C) Bommandra Industrial Area Amakal Taluk, Banglore District had having its Registered office at Mumbai (Maharashtra) was lifted for the purpose of Test & Analysis u/s 23 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act from the premises of respondent No.2 M/s Sudershan Trading Co., Ragunath Pura, Jammu on 06.02.2003. It is further alleged that a copy of intimation on Form 17 for the purpose of lifting of Sample along with one portion of the sealed sample was delivered to respondent No.2 and another portion of the sample was sent to Government Analyst Central India Pharmaceuticals Laboratory, Gaziabad u/s 23(4)(i) of the Act. It is also alleged that a report dated 15.01.2004 was received by respondent No.1 declaring the Drug sample i.e. Cobadex Forte Capsules Batch No. M.D-439 Sample not to be of standard quality. A copy of the Test Report of Drug Sample was sent to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1. However, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 07.02.2004 disclosed that the Drug has been purchased from respondent No.3 and after the receipt of aforesaid letter respondent No.1 further alleged that one more portion of the Drug Sample along with the copy of the report was delivered to respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 10.02.2004 submitted the sales and purchase record of the Drug and as per the record, Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., were shown as the manufacturer of the Drug and as such respondent No.1vide his letter dated 14.02.2004 sent a copy of the test report to petitioner No.2 who is the C&F Agent of M/s Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (“the Company”). Petitioner No.2 then forwarded a copy of the said letter dated 14.02.2004 to the Company. Petitioner No.1 who is an authorized signatory of the Company vide his letter dated 01.03.2004 replied to the letter dated 14.02.2004. However, respondent No.1 did not take any cognizance of the said letter. On the basis of the Test Report dated 15.01.2004, respondent No.1 filed a complaint in question before the Court below. On filing of the complaint, the Court below took the cognizance and issued notices to the accused mentioned in the complaint i.e. petitioners and respondent Nos.2&3. It is further contended that the complaint filed by respondent No.1 is an abuse of process of law and have been filed in gross violation of the statutory provisions of law and the issuance of process on the basis of the aforesaid complaint has resulted into failure of justice. The complaint being misconceived and against the provisions of law is required to be quashed on the following grounds:-

1. That under the provisions of Section 18, a complaint can be filed under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act in the Court of law if the sample of the Drug which has been taken by the concerned Drug Inspector is tested in a Government Laboratory and it has failed to pass through the various tests. The procedure which an officer who is competent to take the sample of the Drug has been prescribed in the provisions contained in Section 23 of the Drug & Cosmetic Act. After taking of the sample, it is required to be sent to the Government Analyst and the procedure governed u/s 25 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act has to be followed in this regard. Under the provisions of