JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C., petitioners have prayed for quashing complaint No. COMA-536-2020 dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure P.7) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar besides summoning order dated 26.06.2020 (Annexure P.8, notice of accusation dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P.9) and the subsequent proceedings due to non-compliance of Section 23 (4)(iii) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.

2. On 30.01.2018, Drug Inspector, Amritsar took sample of 5 drugs from M/s Montu Medical Store (a retailer), situated at Village and Post Office Chogawan, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar. One of the drug, sample of which was taken was 3 strips of 10 capsules each "SANRAB", the manufacturing date of which was November, 2017 and expiry as October, 2019. Said drug had been manufactured by Ticoma Pharmacia, i.e. petitioner No.3. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the partners of said manufacturing firm. The sample portion was divided into four equal portions and was sealed as per statutory requirements by the Drug Inspector, who handed over one of the sealed sample portion to Surinder Singh, partner of the retailer firm, other to the government analyst and one was deposited in the Court.

3. Contention of the petitioners is that one portion of the sample was required to be sent to the manufacturer as per Section 23 (4)(iii) of the Drugs Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') and due to non-compliance of this provision, the petitioner - manufacturer could not get the same analysed and raise demand to adduce evidence in contravention of the report as provided under Section 25 of the Act. It is urged that details of manufacturer were available with the Drugs Inspector as evident from the contents of Form 17, which amounts to disclosure of name and address of the manufacturer under Section 18 -A of the Act. It is further contended that one sealed portion of sample, on analysis by the government analyst, Punjab was declared to be not of standard quality as per his report dated 04.05.2018. Letter along with the report was sent to the retailer M/s Montu Medical Store, who disclosed that drug in question was purchased by him from M/s Shingari Medicare, Narula Complex, Amritsar (Distributor). Letter to explain the position regarding adverse drug report of the sample was then sent to the distributor with the copy to manufacturing firm, i.e. petitioner. However, despite receiving letter from the manufacturer that it had not received part of the sample as required under Section 23 (4)(iii) of the Act to file objections to raise demand for re-analysis, the Drug Inspector filed complaint on 26.06.2020 for prosecution of the petitioners and others under Section 18 (a)(i) punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Act.

4. It is further contended that learned Court without applying judicious mind, has summoned the petitioners. Contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that because of the non-compliance of Section 23 (4)(iii) of the Act, rights of the petitioners have been prejudiced and so, continuation of the complaint would be the lame prosecution in these circumstances. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. and others v. State of Tamil Nadu , (2018) 15 SCC 93 .

5. In reply filed by the respondent-State through Drug Inspector, it is submitted that sample was taken as per the procedure laid down in Section 23 of the Act and the sample report was forwarded to the retailer. After disclosure by th