JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State.

2. In Cr.M.P. No. 2268 of 2016, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C-III Case No. 182/2014, including the order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and in Cr.M.P. No. 2259 of 2016, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C-III Case No. 183/2014, including the order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the learned A.C.J.M., Ranchi, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. The allegations made in the complaint petitions instituted by the Drug Inspector are to the effect that the Drug Inspector had taken sample for the medicines namely NUKAZINE-1 and Nuryl Tablet for test analysis on 29.06.2005 from M/s Nav Shakti Drugs, P.O. Hehal, Ratu Road, Ranchi- 834005, which were taken for the purposes of check and inspection and collected and stored as per Form 17 and were sent to the Government Analyst, Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata for their analysis in Form-13. It is alleged that the Government Analyst in the reports dated 04.10.2006 and 12.09.2007 declared the medicines to be sub-standard. On 04.11.2006 and 15.10.2007, the said test results were supplied to the petitioner-manufacturer. The Drug Inspector, Ranchi vide letter dated 04.08.2014 i.e. after lapse of more than 9 years of the date of collection of sample, requested the learned court of A.C.J.M., Ranchi to register the cases as against the petitioners and to take cognizance of the offence. On the said applications, the cases were registered as C-III 182/2014 and C-III 183/2014.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial court took cognizance under Section 27(d) of the Act. The maximum punishment prescribed under Section 27(d) of the Act is 2 years. However, the complaint cases got registered on 05.08.2014 i.e. after nine years from the date of collection of sample as well as around seven years from the date of declaration of the same as sub-standard by the Government Analyst. He further submits that in terms of Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C., such complaint could have been filed within a period of three years from the date of cause of action arose. He also submits that the complaint cases were filed after a lapse of seven years which is wholly impermissible in law. Section 468 Cr.P.C. is a mandatory statutory provision, therefore, the complaints filed were time barred and the order taking cognizance dated 05.08.2014 is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarah Mathew versus Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian And Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 as well as the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr.M.P. No.104 of 2015, dated 09.08.2017.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and submits that complaint petitions clearly reveal the fact that the Drugs which were manufactured by the petitioner’s company were not in conformation with the standards required and therefore criminal prosecution was lodged against the petitioners. He further submits that the test reports were made available to the petitioners and explanation was also sought for but since no explanation was submitted by the petitioner’s company the complaint cases were instituted. He also submits that sanction was given by the competent authority and thereafter the complaint cases were instituted and considering the gravity of the offence cognizance had rightly been taken by the learned court b