The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the limitation period for filing complaints under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and the influence of precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of criminal complaint bearing COMA No.4/2019 dated 05.02.2019 as well as summoning order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa against the present petitioners.

2. The facts of the present case are that petitioner No.1 is a manufacturer company of various drugs having proper license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rules framed thereunder (for short, “Act”). Besides it, petitioners No.2 to 5 happen to be Directors of petitioner No.1-company. A complaint dated 05.02.2019, came to be filed against the petitioners, at the instance of respondent, invoking Section 18(a) (i) read with Section 27(d) of the Act. It was stated in the complaint that during an inspection of the premises of M/s Shiva Medical Agencies, Water Works Road, Mansa, held on 18.03.2015, few samples of “Pency-D” medicines were taken by respondent and were sent to Government Analyst, Punjab, Chandigarh on 24.03.2015. A report dated 26.06.2015 was received thereupon by the respondent on 02.07.2015. It has also been submitted that on a request/application made at the instance of manufacturer, the second sample was sent for analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata and a report was received on 07.07.2016 by the respondent, resulting into filing of the complaint, before the trial court on 05.02.2019.

3. Based on the aforesaid complaint, the petitioners were summoned to face trial under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Act vide order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.

4. Impugning the complaint as well as the summoning order dated 05.02.2019, relying upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of “Cheminova India Limited and another vs. State of Punjab and another”, (2021) 8 Supreme Court Cases 818 and “State of Rajasthan vs. Sanjay Kumar, 1998)3) RCR (Criminal) 846, besides, Section 468 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 27(d) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once the report of Government Analysts was received by the respondent on 26.06.2015, the complaint filed at their instance on 05.02.2019 was clearly barred by limitation and could not have been entertained at all by the learned trial court. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners refers to paragraph 13 of Cheminova's case (supra) as well as paragraph 13 of Sanjay Kumar's case (supra), which are reproduced as under for reference:-

Para 13 of Cheminova's case (supra):-

“When it is clear from the language of Section 469, Cr.PC that the period of limitation shall commence on the date of offence, there is no reason to seek computation of limitation only from the date of receipt of report of the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. As per the procedure prescribed under the Statute, i.e., Insecticide Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder, the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was the competent authority to which the sample was sent on 17.02.2011, after drawing on 10.02.2011, and the report of analysis was received on 14.03.2011, as such the said Crl.A.@S.L.P.(Crl.)No.4102 of 2020 date is said to be the crucial date for commencement of period of limitation. By virtue of the said report received on 14.03.2011 which states that the active ingredient of the sample was only to the extent 34.70% as against the labelled declaration of 40%, it is clear that it is the date of offence allegedly committed by the accused. Merely because a further request is made for sending the sample to the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, as contemplated under Section 24(4) of the Act, which report was received on 09.12.2011, receipt of such analysis report on 09.12.2011 cannot be the basis for commencement of limitation.”

Para 13 of Sanjay Kumar's case (supra):-

“For the above reasons, in the instant case, the