JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1 By way of the present petition filed under Section 561-A CrPC, the petitioner, namely Sudhir Kumar, Managing Director of Jacksons Laboratories Private Ltd., seeks quashing of criminal proceedings in the complaint titled ‘State through Drug Inspector, Pulwama, Drugs & Food Control Organisation vs. M/s J.M. Traders and Pharmaceutical Distributors and others, filed by the respondent under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [“ Act”), as well as the order of cognizance passed therein.

2 Before I advert to the grounds of challenge urged and pleaded by the petitioner, it is necessary to first set out few facts which are necessary for disposal of this petition.

3 On 07.12.2013, the respondent inspected the business premises of M/S J.M. Traders, Pharmaceutical Distributors, Pulwama, and lifted sample of medicines including that of Molcin plus, Batch No. T-3498 M having date of manufacture as April, 2013 and expiry date March, 2016. The drug was purportedly manufactured by Jacksons Laboratories Private Ltd. The sample was lifted for the purpose of test and analysis as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.The sample picked up was divided into four portions and one portion thereof was sent to the Government Analyst, Drug Laboratory, Srinagar for test and analysis. The Government Analyst submitted its report dated 27.12.2013 to the respondent in which the drug tested/analysed was reported to be not of standard quality.The proprietor of M/S J.M. Traders Pharmaceutical Distributors from whom the sample was picked up was called upon to disclose the source of purchase of the drug. In reply, M/S Traders Pharmaceutical Distributors disclosed the name of Atlantic Distributors, Srinagar as the distributor from whom he had purchased the drug in question. During further investigation, Atlantic Distributors, Srinagar disclosed the name of J.K. Pharma Agencies, and finally it came to be disclosed that the drug in question was manufactured by Jacksons Laboratory Private Ltd.

4 Having found thus, the respondent issued a statutory notice under Section 25(2) of the Act dated 16.01.2014 to the manufacturing company Jacksons Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., and also informed it about the report issued by the Government Analyst, Drug Laboratory, Srinagar. The manufacturer was also supplied a copy of the report of the Government Analyst and a portion of the sample of the drug which had failed in the Laboratory. The notice was responded to by the manufacturing company through its reply dated 11.02.2014 wherein, while acknowledging the receipt of the report of the Government Analyst and one sealed portion of the sample, the petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director of the manufacturing company disputed the report and claimed that the drug in question manufactured by them met all the standards and that the report of the Government Analyst was not correct. This was followed by another communication of the petitioner dated 22.02.2014 wherein the petitioner again disputed the correctness of the report submitted by the Government Analyst. The petitioner issued a third communication on 24.02.2014 conveying to the respondent specifically that the petitioner intended to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the analyst in terms of Section 25(4) of the Act.

5 The respondent, after completing the legal formalities, filed a formal complaint before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama for initiating criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein and three others. The cognizance of the complaint was taken by the CJM on 16.11.2015 and simultaneously the process was issued for securing the presence of the petitioner herein and three others before the Court.The petitioner herein was served with the summons issued by the CJM on 16.05.2016 and he caused appearance in the Court on 15.06.2016. Admittedly, by the time the petitioner appeared, the shelf life of the drug