JUDGMENT

SANJEEV KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner invokes inherent criminal jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which was then in force and now repealed, and seeks to challenge proceedings in complaint titled State through Drug Inspector v. Surjit Singh and others, pending trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu [“the trial Court"].

2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to notice, briefly, few facts, as are germane to the disposal of this petition. The respondent No.2, in his capacity as Drug Inspector appointed under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [“the Act”] and duly empowered by the Government in terms of SRO 288 dated 28.07.1989, lifted samples of Drug “Tab CEFAM-250” (Batch No.349, Mfd date- 09/2009, Exp. Date-08/11, on 22.02.2010 from the premises of M/s Shiv Shakti Medicos, situated at Sure Chak, Phallan Mandal, Jammu.

3. The sample was picked up during random/routine inspection carried out by respondent No.2. The drug was found to have been manufactured by the petitioner-August Remedies, Ogli Nahan Road, Kala Amb-173033 (Himachal Pradesh). He filled up Form No.17 on spot and intimated to M/s Shiv Shakti Medicos about its intention of lifting sample for the purposes of test and analysis from the government analyst i.e. CDFL, Jammu. Respondent No.2 divided the lifted sample of the drug in question into four portions and sealed them as per the procedure under the Act. All the four portions were sealed in the presence of proprietor of M/s Shiv Shakti Medicos, accused No.1 in the complaint. Copy of Form No.17 along with one sealed portion of the sample of the drug in question was handed over to accused No.1 in the complaint against proper receipt. Price of the drugs lifted was also tendered to the accused No.1. One portion of the sample of the lifted drug in question was sent to the government analyst for examination and analysis by respondent No.2. The government analyst sent his report dated 19.07.2010 to respondent No.2 and, as per the report, the sample portion of the drug in question, which was subjected to analysis and examination, was declared not to be of standard quality as defined in the Act. The report further declared the sample portion of the drug having failed in assay of Cefuroxime. Accordingly, respondent No.2 informed accused No.1, from whom sample was lifted, about the report of the government analyst and also provided him a copy thereof. He was also asked to stop sale of the drug in question as also to disclose the name of persons/Company from whom he had purchased such drug. Accused No.1 disclosed that he had purchased the drug in question from respondent No.2 i.e. M/s J.K.Pharma, who, in turn, informed that he had purchased it from accused No.3 i.e. Pankaj Pharma, Delhi. Both, J.K. Pharma and Pankaj Pharma, accused No.2 and 3 were also given notice along with report of government analyst, as warranted by law. They were also asked to stop the sale of drug in question.

4. Accused No.3, M/s Pankaj Pharma, Delhi informed respondent No.2 that he had purchased the drug in question from the distributor i.e. accused No.4-Amro Pharma, Delhi. Resultantly, respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 18-A of the Act to M/s Amro Pharma Delhi and also informed it about the report of the government analyst by providing him copy of the said report as warranted under law. On receipt of particulars of manufacturer from the accused No.4 in the complaint, respondent No.2 issued notice dated 28.08.2010 to the petitioner- manufacturing company through registered post and informed it about the test report of the drug in question manufactured by it.

5. Petitioner herein being the manufacturing company of the drug in question was directed to immediately furnish sale and stock record of the drug in question with a further direction to recall the drug from the m