The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right of the accused to have their samples analyzed by the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act must be upheld, and any delay in the process that defeats the purpose of prosecution may warrant the quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records relating to the proceedings in STC.No.297 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai and quash the same.)

1. The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners are accused in STC.No.297 of 2016, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sivagangai, which was instituted at the instance of the first respondent / Drugs Inspector, for contraventions under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). Challenging the proceedings pending against them, the petitioners have filed this petition.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

2.1. The first respondent, on 05.05.2015 caused a surprise inspection in the premises of M/s.Elango Medicals, situated at 143/1, Ground Floor, Shop No.3, Gandhi Veethi, Sivagangai and drew samples of a drug named ''Clavam Dry Syrup''. The sample was divided into four portions and one was sent to the Government Analyst for analysis.

2.2. The Government Analyst, after analysis, has submitted a report dated 14.09.2015, holding that the sample did not conform to the IP specification and hence, the sample is ''not of standard quality''.

2.3. The first respondent issued show cause notice dated 23.09.2015 to M/s.Elango Medicals, Sivagangai, to disclose the name of the person, from whom they acquired the product. M/s.Elango Medicals informed that they purchased the product from one M/s.Nagappa Agencies, Madurai. The first respondent thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 23.09.2015 to M/s.Nagappa Agencies, to disclose the name of the person, from whom they acquired the product. M/s.Nagappa Agencies responded that they purchased the product from M/s.Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Chennai, who, on receipt of a show cause notice dated 14.10.2015 from the first respondent, responded that they received the product from M/s.Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Mohali. On receipt of a notice dated 03.11.2015 from the first respondent, they replied that they received the product from M/s.Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Himachal Pradesh / the first petitioner herein.

2.4. The first respondent, thereafter, issued notice dated 26.11.2015, to the petitioners Company seeking their explanation for violation of Section 18(i) of the Act and thereafter, lodged the complaint.

3. Sum and substance, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended as follows:

3.1. The Drug Inspector took the samples for analysis on 05.05.2015 itself, but the complaint was filed only on 19.05.2016. The expiry date of the samples was April, 2016. The ''best before'' date of the sample has already been expired and the sample would have also deteriorated and decayed and lost its original ingredients and characteristics. Therefore, the right of the petitioners to have their sample analysed by the Central Food Laboratory, as per Section 25(4) of the Act has been deprived of.

3.2. The samples were drawn on 05.05.2015 and the Government Analyst submitted the report on 14.09.2015. It is not known whether the seized samples were stored in a conducive environment, before the analysis.

3.3. It is not that the petitioners have not responded to the notices issued by the Drug Inspector. In fact, on receipt of show cause notices dated 14.10.2015, 03.11.2015 and 26.11.2015, from the first respondent, the Company controverted the same by referring the reports of the quality assurance and quality control team.

Therefore, he prayed for appropriate orders quashing the complaint.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents'' Laboratory controlled by the Government Analyst had all the required arrangement for the storage of the drugs and therefore, the subject drug was also stored