Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, I have come to the conclusion that this revision must succeed. No doubt the Courts of law should not allow a person guilty of an offence punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to escape lightly by taking cover behind technicality. Nevertheless justice has to be administered accord ing to law and the Courts cannot shut their eyes to vital omissions on the part of the Investigating agency.

I have sounded the above noted caution because I am alive to the responsibility which this Court has to the society and at the same time to a person accused of an offence under the Act. Gravity of the problem makes it all the more incumbent on the prosecution to take its duty more seriously and to acquaint itself with the law which it is required to enforce. The duties of the prosecution agency in a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act have to be discharged by the officers designated under the said enactment. It would not be proper for this Court to assume the function of the prosecutor and to gloss over the regularities inherent in the prosecution launched against a person under the said Act.

Now it is not in dispute that there is a firm, dealing in whole-sale busi ness of selling Drugs at Saharanpur which is working under the name and style of M/s. Adarsh Medical Store, Saharanpur. According to the prosecu tion the applicant Ashok Kumar Khurana and opposite party No. 3 Arvind Kumar Malhotra were the partners in the said firm. The firm sold certain goods to a Drug Store at Bijnor which were founj to be adulterated and sub-standard. Ultimately the Drug Inspector carried on a search of the premises of M/s Adarsh Medical Store, Saharanpur and took samples of certain medicine which was sent for analysis by chemical analyst. The said drugs were found to be sub-standard. On receipt of the said report a complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate by P. R. Rastogi, Drugs Inspector. On the basis of the said report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate Saharanpur issued summons to A. K. Khurana and A, K. Malhotra on August 16, 1p79. On an objection raised by the counsel for A, K Khurana, the Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 24-11-1979 recalled his earlier order dated August 16, 1979 only in so far as the applicant was concerned. Feeling himself aggrieved by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate A. K. Malhotra filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur. A. K. Khurana was also impleaded as a party to the said revision and the notice of the revision was also served upon him. The Sessions Judge, by his order dated August 4, 1980 dismissed the revision filed by A. K.

Malhotra. He, however, suo motu took cognizance of the order dated 24-11-1979 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate had recalled his earlier order of August 16, 1979, summoning A. K. Khurana. He set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated November 24, 1979 and remanded the case to him with a direction to proceed in relation to the applicant, A. K. Khurana also, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 209 Cr. P. C. The effect of the order of the Sessions Judge is that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate summoning the applicant A. K. Khurana stands reinstated and the Magistrate is placed under an obligation to commit the applicant also to the Court of Sessions for trial for the offence under Section 27/18 read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

In passing this order against the applicant, the Sessions Judge has relied on the case of Sanjav Gandhi v. Union of India A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 515. The said case, in my opinion, is clearly distinguishable and does not apply to the instant case. In that case, V. R. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Court, has made the following observations.

"in our view the narrow inspection hole through which the committing Magistrate has to look at the case limits him merely to ascertain whether the case,