The issuance of process by a Trial Court requires a recorded application of mind to the facts and evidence; taking cognizance in a 'rubber stamp method' without assigning reasons is unsustainable in law and constitutes an abuse of process.

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1046 of 2022 on the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A4 in this proceedings. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent had inspected the first accused company on 19.12.2018 and on verification of the stock, purchase invoices and sale distribution records relating to the drugs particularly the drug Tydol 100 mg and Tydol 50 mg tablets, it was found that there were discrepancies between the stock available and the records maintained by the accused. A substantial quantity of the said drugs could not be property accounted for. Further certain quantities of the said drugs had been sold to the persons who were not holding valid drug licences and it is contravention of the provision under Section 18(c) of the Act. Further the accused had failed to maintain proper sale records under Rule 65(5)1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), by not entering the name of the manufacturer in the sale bills and the sale bills were not property authenticated by the competent person. In view of the above discrepancies, the petitioners were served with notice thereby calling upon them to furnish explanation. Though the accused submitted explanation, it was found to be unsatisfactory and unsupported by reliable documentary evidences. Therefore, the accused had committed contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act r/w Rule 65(5)(1) of the Rules, which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. After obtaining sanction, the respondent lodged complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. To quash the said proceedings the petitioners filed the present Criminal Original Petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the day to day affairs of the first accused company, since there is no specific averments to attract any charge as against the accused persons. As per Section 32(2) of the Act, no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Act. Now the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has taken cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and issued summons. The provision under Section 27(d) of the Act falls within the scope and ambit of Chapter IV of the Act. Therefore, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance on report filed by the respondent. The said error vitiate the entire trial as per Section 461 (k) & (l) of Cr.P.C., and it would also amount to illegality. Further the Trial Court had taken cognizance in a rubber stamp method without assigning any reason for taking cognizance. It is clear violation of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and this Court time and time again.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the first accused is a company and the other accused are the Managing Directors of the first accused company. They are the competent persons to look after the day to day affairs of the first accused company and there are specific allegations as against them to attract t