The right of the petitioner to adduce evidence under sub sections 3 and 4 of section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was crucial in influencing the court's decision to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.D. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 08.12.2020 passed by learned A.J.C.-II, Ranchi, in Drugs and Cosmetic Case No.10 of 2020, whereby the court has taken cognizance of section 27(d) and 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the matter is pending in the court of learned A.J.C.-II, Ranchi.

3. The complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector alleging therein that the Drug Inspector has filed complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi alleging therein that the Drug Inspector has collected one drug in the name and style of ‘Atenolol Tablet’ on 17.02.2020 from M/s State Dispensary, Doranda, Ranchi, manufactured and sold by M/s Jackson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and he got it tested from State Drug Testing Laboratory, Jharkhand, a competent authority for the said testing and found the said seized drug not of standard quality vide Report No.SDTL/JH/GA-58/2020 dated 13.3.2020 (Form 13) (Annexure-IV) and it is violation of view of drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules. Further the allegation against the accused is that they failed to provide the required information and failed to maintain required registers, documents etc. violating section 18B of Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under section 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

4. Perused the prosecution report along with the documents. On perusal of prosecution report, it appears that the prosecution report filed mentioning therein that on 17.02.2020, the complainant cum Drug Inspector has collected one drug in the name and style of Atenolol Tablet from M/s State Dispensary, Doranda, Ranchi, manufactured and sold by M/s Jackson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and the same was reported not of standard quality by State Drug Testing Laboratory, Ranchi, and thus the Drug Inspector filed this case against the accused namely, 1.Jugal Kishore the Managing Director, 2.Sudhir Kumar the Director, 3.Ramesh Kumar and another Director of M/s Jackson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and 4.M/s Jackson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.

5. The Drug Inspector cum complainant of this case has collected one tablet of drug namely Atenolol Tablet on 17.2.2020 from M/s State Dispensary, Doranda, Ranchi, manufactured and sold by M/s Jackson Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and he got it tested from Drug Testing Laboratory, Jharkhand, a competent authority for the said testing and found the said seized drug substandard and the company and the accused further failed to provide the required information and produced documents and registers to be maintained by them under section 18B of Drugs and Cosmetics Act when called for by the concerned Drug Inspector. The letter etc. communicated to the company has been filed with this prosecution report and thus it is violation of section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18(B) Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules and punishable under section 27(d) and 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

6. Mr. Bibhash Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that drug in question was seized on 17.02.2020 and the report was received by the prosecution on 13.03.2020. He submits that said sample was sent on 04.07.2020, received on 13.07.2020 and on 31.07.2020 the petitioners filed the reply before the concerned Drug Inspector alongwith test report in light of section 25(3) of the Act. The prosecution was filed on 27.10.2020. The petition was filed by the petitioners on 17.01.2020 under section 25(4) of the Act and cognizance was taken on 08.12.2020. He submits that the statutory provisions of sub sections 3 and 4 of section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [hereinafter referred to as the Act] has not been followed and in light of that the right of the petitioner has been infringed and this aspect of the matter is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Med