Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. Through this petition filed under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint (Annexure P1) filed under Sec.18 (c) read with Sections 61 and 18 (a) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Drugs Act) and the orders dated 3/1/1995 (Annexure P2) and 14/3/1996 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar respectively.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the partners of petitioner No.5 firm. On 16.7.1991, a complaint was filed by the District Drugs Inspector, Hisar against the petitioners under Sec.18 (c) read with Sections 61 and 18 (l) (i) of the Drugs Act alleging therein that on 17.8.1988, a raid was conducted on the business premises of petitioner No.5 firm. In the said raid, some allopathic drugs i. e. Avil and Anacin were found in the business premises of the firm. It was alleged that without obtaining any licence under Rule 61 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the firm was selling the allopathic medicine. It was further alleged