Cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires adherence to procedural mandates, especially under Section 202 of Cr. P. C when the accused is beyond jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. Through the medium of present judgment, the afore- titled two petitions arising out of the same complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners and co-accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, are proposed to be disposed of.

2. The petitioners, who happen to be the accused in the impugned complaint, have challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against them before the trial Magistrate. By virtue of the impugned complaint, prosecution for offences under Section 18(a)(1) read with Section 27(d), Section 18A read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been launched against the petitioners and the co-accused. Challenge has also been thrown by the petitioners to the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby cognizance of offences has been taken and the process has been issued against the petitioners.

3. It appears that the respondent Drug Control Officer, Anantnag, filed a complaint against the petitioners as also against their Directors and three more accused persons before the trial Magistrate. As per contents of the complaint, the respondent visited the premises of accused M/S Three Star Medical Agency on 09.01.2020 for inspection and lifted sample of drug “Tab Pantolid” manufactured by petitioner Mancare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The sample was divided into four equal portions and sealed by following the procedure prescribed under law. One portion of the sample was handed over to the proprietor of accused M/S Three Star Medical Agency against proper receipt, another portion of the sample was sent to the Government Analyst in terms of memorandum dated 09.01.2020. As per test report submitted by the Government Analyst, the sample was found not of standard quality as the same was not complying to IP requirement with respect to disintegration test. In this regard, the Government Analyst furnished his report dated 30.05.2020. A copy of the said report was furnished to proprietor of accused M/S Three Star Agency and it was directed to submit the procurement/purchase records as also the distribution pattern of drug in question. The available quantity of tablets of “Pantolid” was seized and kept in safe custody after obtaining permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag.

4. It is further averred in the impugned complaint that as per the information furnished by accused M/S Star Medical Agency, the drug in question had been purchased from accused M/S J. S. Traders, Anantnag. Accordingly, the details were sought from M/S J. S. Trader with regard to the supplier of the drug. Vide communication dated 1^st June, 2020, accused M/S J. S. Traders disclosed the name of M/S Rather Traders, Srinagar, accused No.4, as supplier of the drug. M/S Rather Traders, in turn, disclosed that it had purchased the said drug from petitioner M/S Nava Health Care Private Limited, New Delhi, vide invoice dated 03.04.2019. The original copy of the test report along with portion of drug sample was forwarded to the manufacturer petitioner M/S Mancare Laboratories Limited and information was sought from the said petitioner. Vide communication dated 02.06.2020, petitioner M/S Mancare Laboratories desired re-testing of the drug sample and to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Government Analyst.

5. In terms of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, the sample of drug was sent to Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, for re-testing and vide report dated 23.09.2020, of the said Laboratory it was declared that the drug in question is not of a standard quality as the