JUDGMENT :

1. In all these cases, common orders and complaint case have been challenged, that’s why all these petitions have been heard together with the consent of the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Indraji Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases and Mr. Binit Chandra, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III for the opposite parties in Cr.M.P. No. 2984 of 2014, Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, learned A.P.P. for the opposite parties in Cr.M.P. No. 275 of 2015 and Ms Sushma Aind, learned A.P.P. for the opposite parties in Cr.M.P. No. 284 of 2015.

3. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 01.06.2010, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been taken against the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the orders dated 27.09.2010, 21.05.2011, 30.07.2013 and 26.09.2013, by which, bailable warrant, nonbailable warrant and processes under Sections 82 and 83 respectively have and its analogous cases been directed to be issued against the petitioners, in connection with C.G. No. 19 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 697 of 2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

4. The prosecution story as per the complaint filed by the O.P. No. 2 in short is that the petitioner No. 1, which is Manufacturing Company of a drug, namely, Phensedyl New Cough Linctus and have manufactured, distributed and sold at misbranded drug inasmuch it has used the name of Nicholas and triangular logo along with the name of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. and its Gyan Mudra Logo on the pretext of providing additional information. The aforesaid act on the part of the petitioners amounts to misbranding in terms of Section 16(1)(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It has been further alleged that the petitioner No.1 has changed the label of Phensedyl New Cough Linctus, which was approved by the Drug Control Office and thereby has violated Rule 104A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as no permission of the licensing authority was taken before making such alteration or inscription or mark on the container, label or rapper of the drug. This alteration/ inscription/mark is prohibited in terms of Section 18(a)(vi) of the Act.

In view of the aforesaid facts, it has been alleged that the petitioners have made themselves liable for being prosecuted in terms of Section 27(d) of the Act.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases submits that the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj has been pleased the take cognizance by the order dated 01.06.2010 and the subsequent orders, by which, bailable warrant, non-bailable warrant and processes under Sections 82 and 83 respectively have been directed to be issued against the petitioners are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He submits that in Cr.M.P. No.2984 of 2014, the petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is, inter alia, engaged in manufacturing of drugs, the petitioner No. 2 the Board of Directors of the company, is being represented by the Manager Legal, who has been duly authorized and the petitioner No. 3 was the Chief Manager, Quality Assurance in M/s Piramal Health Care Ltd. and is now working with Abott Pharmaceuticals Private Ltd. He further submits that the petitioner No. 1 was previously manufacturing the drug in question namely Phensedyl New Cough Linctus in the name of Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. with a triangle logo of and its analogous cases Nicholas. He further submits that the name of company was subsequently changed to M/s Piramal Healthcare Ltd. and the Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra had also issued a fresh certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of name on 13.05.2008, as also Corporate Identity Number on 13.05.2008. He furthe