JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By moving this application prayer is made to quash the summoning order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1/Special Judge (Drugs and Cosmetic Act) Pilibhit and all the consequential proceedings in Session Trial No. 361 of 2020 (Complaint No. 2000 of 2018), under Sections 16 ,17,18 (b), 27 Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940, P.S. Puranpur, District Pilibhit.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that previously trial court passed the summoning order dated 12.03.2021, which was quashed by this Court vide order dated 28.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. No. 26823 of 2022. The order was found to be passed without application of judicial mind and matter was remanded back to the trial court to reconsider the matter and pass suitable order in accordance with law.

4. In compliance of the order dated 28.09.2022, trial court passed the summoning order dated 06.01.2023, which is appended at page 39 of the paper book.

5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the alleged complaint is a defective complaint, it cannot be said to be proper complaint filed on format prescribed by law. In the complaint it is no where mentioned that what is the offence of the applicant and on the basis of what offence, he has been summoned by the trial court. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the para no. 10 of the order dated 28.09.2022 whereby the trial court was directed to consider the complaint of the complainant and pass suitable order in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the word 'complaint' in order dated 28.09.2022 reflects that earlier also this Court found the complaint to be defective that is why trial court was directed to consider the 'complaint' of the complainant while passing a fresh summoning order.

6. Learned A.G.A. however, opposed the prayer and submitted that during the investigation, as per complaint itself, the sample of drugs recovered from the shop of the applicant did not confirm to the declared formula in respect of content of paracetamal. It is further submitted that applicant had been summoned by the trial court after going through the evidence available on record.

7. On the basis of first information report the allegation is that the drugs mentioned in schedule-H were recovered from the firm of the applicant by the officer concerned at the time of inspection and a report was prepared annexed as Annexure-2 to the complaint. From the perusal of F.S.L. report, it appears that sample did not confirm to the declared formula in respect of drugs. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the complaint is not on the proper formant is concerned, no specific format is prescribed for filing the complaint, and if we go through the complaint, who made the inspection, what was recovered, whether list was prepared of this recovered Schedule-H drugs or not, how the sample was taken, F.S.L. report was received and that drugs did not confirm the declared formula in respect of drug, all the ingredients that may constitute the complaint are mentioned in the alleged complaint No other specific objection has been raised by the applicant's counsel. In the opinion of the Court, the impugned summoning order is a detailed and well discussed order, passed after application of mind by the officer concerned, hence the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant has no force.

8. The application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is, thus,dismissed.