ORDER :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-company for quashing the proceedings of the complaint titled “Drugs Inspector Jammu zone-VI vs. M/s. R. G Enterprises and others” pending before the court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate Jammu (hereinafter to be referred to as the trial court) on the following grounds:

(a) That there is no reference to the actual role played by the petitioner and the Directors in the commission of alleged offence, which is the subject matter of the instant case and in the absence of any such specific role attributed to the petitioner, no proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner.

(b) That the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner are illegal and without any justification on the ground that the same is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, New Delhi India (Statutory Authority Under Act). The nature of the defect in the present case falls under category “B” “Minor Defects” and as per the guidelines so issued by CDSCO, only administrative measures by way of suspension of license could have been resorted to by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner-company rather than initiating the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Drugs Licensing Authority, Drugs Control Administration, Solan, Himachal Pradesh suspended the license of the petitioner-company for a period of around two months to manufacture the drug in question and hence the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(c) That the learned trial court without application of mind took cognizance against the petitioner when the substantial right of the petitioner for getting the drug in question retested/reanalysed by the Central Drug Laboratory Kolkatta as envisaged in section 25 (3) and section 25 (4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was denied to the petitioner by the deliberate conduct of the respondent No.1 and also by failure on its part to supply one sealed sample portion of drug in question to the petitioner as required under section 23 (4) (ii) and further respondent No.1 filed the complaint without adhering to the letter/reply addressed to the respondent No.1 by the petitioner in which the test report in question was disputed and reanalysis was demanded.

(d) That the learned trial court without application of the mind, took cognizance against the petitioner in light of the fact that the present complaint was filed very shortly before the expiry of shelf life of the drug in question and by that time the petitioner received summons, the drug in question had already expired. The petitioner, as such, has lost its valuable right of getting the drug in question reanalyzed/retested from the Central Laboratory Kolkatta.

(e) That the failure of the respondent No.1 to promptly send the sample for test by the Central Drug Laboratory in view of the objections raised by the petitioner with regard to the report of the Government Analyst as per I.P. method and not as per B.P method and also in view of the fact that the report of the government analyst is contrary to the report submitted by the in house laboratory of the petitioner, has caused prejudice and denial of opportunity to the petitioner to avail the vital right provided under section 25 (4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

2. The respondent No. 1 has filed the response, in which it has been stated that the petitioner has raised the disputed question of facts in the present petition, which are required to be appreciated only at the stage of trial and besides narrating the factual aspects of the case, the respondent No. 1 has specifically stated that the petitioner failed to reply to the notice dated 18.11.2011 and did not notify its intention to controvert the report of the Government Analyst.

Facts of the case:

3. On 26.09.2011, the respondent No. 1 went for a routine inspection in his jurisdiction