JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

2. Both these writ petitions arise out of same FIR and, therefore, they have been heard and are being decided together.

3. The writ petitions seek quashing of the first information report dated 02.03.2023 giving rise to Case Crime No.92 of 2023, under Sections 274, 275 & 276 of I.P.C. and Section 17, 17(a), 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station-Phase-3 Sector 71 Noida, Noida Commissionerate, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR has been lodged on the basis of Test Analysis Report dated 14.01.2023 of the Govt. Analyst, Regional Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh. This test report is alleged to pertain to "DOK-1 Max Syrup" and 'Ambroxol Hydrochloride Syrup (Ambronol Syrup)'.

5. It has also vehemently urged that the report merely states that the drugs on analysis were found 'not of standard quality'.

6. The first submission is that the report of the Drug Analyst would attract Section 17-A and 17-B of the Act of 1940 but the FIR has been registered under Section 17, 17(a) and 17(b) of the Act.

7. The second contention is that in the complaint filed contains no allegations as regards the facts which would constitute the offence alleged. In any case, the test analyst report does not state that the drugs upon analysis were found adulterated or spurious.

8. It is next contended that the Govt. Analysts' Report is not conclusive and an opportunity is required to be given to controvert the report. It is only thereafter that the report becomes final.

9. It has also been submitted that infringement of Section 17, 17(a) and 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are not cognizable offences.

10. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma, it has been submitted that an offence under Chapter IV of the Act can only be prosecuted by means of a complaint by a Drug Inspector and the police cannot lodge an FIR in that regard nor can the police prosecute offenders regarding such an offence. For the same reason, the police officers do not have any power to arrest.

11. It is next contended that no offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station as the drugs in question were meant exclusively for export and were not to be sold internally. Therefore, no offence has been committed in India.

12. It is next contended that the petitioners are merely Directors in Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd., which company has not been arrayed in the FIR. The company manufacturing the allegedly substandard drug was in any case a necessary party and in its absence also the FIR is not sustainable.

13. It is also sought to be contended that there is no allegation in the FIR insofar as the role of the petitioners, the Directors in Marion Biotech Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, which is relevant because a Director in a case of an offence by a company must be in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and the offence was committed within his or her knowledge. No knowledge, consent or connivance of the petitioners has been alleged in the FIR.

14. Learned AGA on the other hand has submitted that the FIR has been lodged as the drugs manufactured by the company were no doubt ment for export and were duly exported to Kazakhstan where 54 children are said to have been died after consuming the drugs in issue. The search was conducted and specimen of the drugs were obtained and tested in relation to those deaths.

15. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

16. Insofar as the first submission of counsel for the petitioner noticed herein above is concerned, it may be noticed that in the body of the FIR the sections mentioned as 17-A & 17-B but in the column 2 of the FIR they have been transcribed as 17(a) and 17(b), which appears to be a typographical error.

17. The judgment cited by learne