The relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C-III Case No. 122/2014, including the order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. The allegation made in the complaint petition instituted by the Drug Inspector is to the effect that the Drug Inspector had taken a sample for the medicine Decicort Tab. Manufactured by the petitioner’s company for test analysis on 12.02.2006 from M/s Prabhat Pharmacy, Patarhatu, Silli, Ranchi which was sent to the Government Analyst CDL, Kolkata for its analysis in Form-18. It is alleged that the Government Analyst in the report dated 21.05.2007 declared the medicine to be sub-standard as it did not conform to the claim with respect to Dexamethasone Sodium Phosphate content. It is alleged that the medicine was supplied by M/s Sanjay Drug Agency to M/s Prabhat Pharmacy, Patrahatu. Further allegation has been levelled that the medicine was supplied to M/s Sanjay Drugs, Ranchi by A.K. Pharmaceuticals Agency, Sri Ram Complex, S.N. Road, Ranchi vide bill dated 09.11.2005 and the petitioner’s company had supplied the medicine to M/s A.K. Pharmaceuticals Agency. It is alleged that since the petitioner’s company was the manufacturer of the said drug in terms of Section 18(A) one part of the sample was made available to the petitioner’s company and explanation was demanded but since nothing was made available the complaint case was instituted. Upon instituting the complaint case cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi om 23.04.2014 u/s 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the allegation has been levelled of violation of Section 18(b) of the Act but the same relates to maintenance of records and furnishing of information and as would be apparent from the complaint petition there is no allegation that the petitioner’s company was not maintaining the records, registers and other documents. It has been submitted that so far as Section 22(1) of the Act is concerned the same also is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that a reply was submitted by the petitioner’s company on 07.06.2010 to reanalyze the report since the batch under reference was analyzed at the end of the company and it was found to be conforming to the standard. Learned senior counsel further submits that because of different methods of analysis the discrepancy was found and as because the report of the Government Analyst was not served upon the petitioner therefore no objection could be raised by the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that maximum punishment which can be imposed u/s 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is of 2 years imprisonment and in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the complaint petition itself was hopelessly time barred. It has been submitted that the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi instead of taking cognizance should have straightaway dismissed the complaint petition on the ground of delay. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the reason for delay is unsatisfactory as would be apparent from the forwarding letter addressed by the Drug Inspector to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has submitted that complaint petition clearly reveals the fact that the Drug which was manufactured by the petitioner’s company was not in conformation with the standards required and therefore criminal prosecution was lodged against the petitioner. It has be