The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, specifically Section 27 and Section 36-AB, to determine the jurisdiction of the court in trying the offences related to drugs and cosmetics.

1. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda by virtue of which the complaint preferred by the petitioner u/s 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, was transferred to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Doda, which is violation as per SRO 171 of 2011 as well as the mandate of Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.

2. In this petition notice is yet to be issued.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2011, a sample of drug “Handloom Cloth Rolled Bandage” Batch no. 24, having manufacturing date August 2010 and expiry date 2014 manufactured by Sundaram Surgicals, Sankarapandian Puram, Chattrapatti, was lifted from the premises of respondent No. 1 for test and analysis from Government Analysis, CFDL, Jammu; after lifting sample portion of the said drug, it was forwarded to the office of Government Analyst in Form18 under Rule 57 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for testing and analysis under the provisions of Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. It is further stated that on 26.09.2011, Government Analyst, CFDL, Jammu forwarded the certificate of test under Form 13 and declared the sample of the drug to be not of standard quality as defined in the Act with reason that the same fails in the tests, thread per dm, length/width. During investigation, petitioner issued a letter dated 12.10.2011 to respondent No. 1 and informed him that the drug lifted from his premises is sub-standard and further, directed him to furnish details of the firm from whom such product had been purchased and also requested him to furnish details of the stock of the product. The respondent No. 1 in his reply stated that the drug in question has been supplied and distributed to him by Neeru Pharmaceuticals, Vinayak Bazar, Jammu (respondent No. 2) and also submitted the invoices/bills for the same. The petitioner, thereafter communicated with other persons (i.e. Raj Pharmaceuticals Peer Mitha Bazar Jammu, Galaxy Surgicals, Delhi and Manufacturing Company) who also arrayed as accused in the complaint and during investigation respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted details of the person along with invoices/bills from whom the drug was purchased. It is further stated that notices were even issued to respondent No. 4 and it was informed of the report of Government Analyst but no reply was received and after completion of investigation and receipt of prosecution permission from the office of Controller Drugs and Food Control Organization J&K, petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of law against the respondents under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda after going through the record, passed an order dated 27.12.2013 and transferred the complaint to CJM, Doda.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda, has challenged the same inter-alia on the following grounds:

(i) That the impugned order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda is against the law and facts and circumstances of the case and hence, deserves to be set aside.

(ii) That the order dated 27.12.2013 requires to be set aside on the ground that the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda while passing the order impugned, the court wrongly assumed that it lacks jurisdiction to try the case and the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to try the matter. Further it is submitted that the allegations in the title of the complaint against the respondents were under section 18(a)(1) read with section 27 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 27 (c) of the Act provides that any drug deemed to be spurious under Section 17-B, but of being a Drug referred to in clause (a) shall be punishable with imprisonment f