ORDER

1. This present petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners/company under section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 5.10.2020 passed in ST No.348/2020 by JMFC, Ujjain whereby upon the private complaint, cognizance under sections 17(b)(e), 18(a)(iv), 18(B), 27(c), 27(d) & 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1940".) has been taken and process has been issued against the petitioners.

2. Facts of the case are that pursuant to a complainant made by the complainant, the respondent has inspected the premises of the company namely M/s Simco Pharma on 20.9.2016 situated at 30, Ravi Shankar Nagar, Ujjain and found that the drugs namely Silver Sulphadiazine Cream (31x500grams) was found in the boxes wihout adhering lebel on drugs. Authorized person of M/s Simco Pharma told the respondent that the said drugs has been purchased by M/s. Simco Pharma from the present petitioners. The respondent has issued two letters dated 19.12.2016 and 8.2.2017 to the present petitioner seeking explanation regarding sale of the said drugs. In reply dated 29.3.2017,the petitioner no.1 has stated that the said drugs were sold to M/s. Simco Pharma adhering/affixing the label. Thereafter, on 5.10.2020, respondent has submitted a complainant against various persons including the petitioners under the provisions of section 17(b)(e), 18(a)9i), 18(A)(vi), 18(B), 27(c), 27(d) and 28-A of The Act. Vide order dated 5.10.2020, the learned Session Judge has taken cognizance against the petitioners.

3. The petitioners are challenging the impugned order of cognizance on the ground of jurisdiction of Session Court that without committal by Magistrate under section 193 of Cr.P.C session Court has no jurisdiction, without application of mind, process has been issued against the petitioners. It is also submitted that that as per the provisions of section 36-AB of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 without there being committal of case by the Magistrate, the Sessions Court has no power to pass such order of taking cognizance against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the process has been issued without application of mind in a mechanical manner which is not sustainable in the eye of law. section 204 of Cr.P.C. specifically provides that if sufficient ground is made out for issuance of process then the Court is empowered to issue the process wherein in the case at hand, the learned Session Judge has not applied its mind while issuance of process and simply registered the case and issued the process against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Session Court has passed the impugned order against the petitioners without taking into considering the provisions of section 36-AD of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 r/w section 468 of Cr.P.C. which provides period of limitation of one year for taking cognizance in such offences, whereas, in the present case, search took place in the year 2016 and cognizance has been taken in the year 2020.

4. It is further submitted that the learned session Court has taken the cognizance in the matter without recording prima facie satisfaction and issued the process which is not in consonance with the law. It is also submitted that no statements were recorded prior to passing the impugned order. The learned trial Court has also overlooked the provisions of section 34 of the Act. The provisions of section 209 of Cr.P.C. has not been considered by the learned Sessions Court while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that although the offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Act is triable by Session Court but not cognizable by Court of Session. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order which has been passed illegally, without application of mind and without following the appropriate procedure.

5. In support of his argument, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment passed in the case o