JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners are aggrieved of the Order dated 09.04.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge under TADA/POTA (Designated Court under Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940) (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in a complaint titled as State through Drug Inspector, Zone – III Srinagar Vs. Sanjay Ahuja and others, in which the Trial Court has taken cognizance and issued process against the accused. The Trial Court order is being challenged on the following grounds:

i) The complaint has been filed by the State through Drug Inspector Zone-III, Srinagar, under Section 17-B (e), 18(A) and 18 (B) read with Sections 27(c), 28 and 28(A) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”) and Rules made thereunder, as such, the order dated 09.04.2014 is to be quashed particularly when petitioners are neither manufacturers nor have, they manufactured the items seized nor have they supplied it to the Institution purporting that the product is theirs. In view of the complaint, petitioners have never been asked to disclose the name of the manufacturer nor they are the custodians of the record. In fact, they have not been questioned at all which is clear from the contents of complaint, sti