The court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and directed the trial court to conclude the trial within 6 months, despite acknowledging the delay in the proceedings.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent, titled, “State versus M/s. Narayan Dass Bhagwan Dass and others” pending before the court of learned Sub Judge (Special Municipal Magistrate) Jammu, on the following grounds:

(a) That there is no allegation in the complaint against the present petitioners that can even remotely suggest that the petitioners have committed any offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').

(b) That in the present complaint there is no allegation in the complaint which would bring the case within the mischief of section 34(2) of the Act.

(c) That the sale of the drugs has been made by the Medical Officer Government Gandhi Nagar Hospital but the respondent No. 1 did not choose to file the complaint against the main accused so in absence of the main accused, it cannot be said that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of the Act.

(d) That the present complaint deserves to be quashed as the petitioner No. 1 has been arrayed as one of the accused but through no body and in the absence of person through whom the firm is to be served, the complaint is not maintainable.

(e) That for the last about 12 years the case is being dragged due to the fault of the prosecution and the petitioners are suffering mental, financial and physical strain due to the pendency of the case.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the Drug Inspector lifted sample of Prochlorperazine tablets I.P. 5 mg, manufactured by M/S Associated Pharma, 8/29 Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi from the stores of Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar along with other drug samples on 23.10.1998. The sample was divided into 4 portions of 50 tablets each and sealed in presence of Medical Officer In-charge Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar. As provided under the Act, one portion of the sample was sent to Government Analyst CFDL, Jammu vide letter dated 24.10.1998 for analyses, who vide its report dated 28.10.1999 declared the drug in question to be not of standard quality due to the reasons that the sample failed in description, uniformity of rates of tablets and contents of Prochlorperazine tablet. Thereafter, Medical Superintendent Government Hospital Gandhi Nagar vide its letter dated 12.11.1999 stated that the drug has been purchased from M/S Narayan Das Bhagwan Das, wholesale Druggist behind State Bank of India, Bhagirath Palace Chandni Chowk Delhi i.e. the petitioner No. 1 herein, vide invoice dated 23.10.1997. The petitioner No. 1 herein vide letter dated 22.11.1999 submitted that they had purchased the drug from M/s. Medicine Traders Pharmaceutical Distributor Bhagirath Palace Chandni Chowk Delhi vide invoice dated 18.10.1997 and from M/s. Associated Pharma, Bhagirath Palace Chandni Chowk Delhi vide invoice dated 08.03.1997. After the completion of requisite formalities, Deputy Controller Drugs and Food, Jammu conveyed the approval of the Controlling Authority for launching prosecution against the parties concerned and accordingly the complaint was filed against all accused including the petitioner No. 1. The said complaint was filed on 10.02.2000 and the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.02.00 issued the process against the accused including the petitioner No. 1 herein.

3. Mr. Amrish Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is violation of section 34(2) of the Act, as such, the proceedings are required to be quashed. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 has not been arrayed as accused through someone and further that the petitioners are facing rial for the last 12 years and still some of the accused have not been served till date. He laid much stress that the main accused from whom the sample was lifted, has not been arrayed as an accused, as such, the proceedings are required to be quashed.

4. Per contra, Mr. H.A. Siddiqui has vehemently argued t