IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 04.09.2025 Pronounced on : 31.10.2025 Tirath Ram ..... Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Ors.

..... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG Punjab.

*****

SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner, who, by virtue of order dated 30.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehgarh Sahib, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’, has been summoned to face trial for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 18(1)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. He is aggrieved of the abovementioned order, and therefore, he has challenged the same and is seeking the quashing of the abovementioned order.

2. Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the State of Punjab through District Drug Inspector, Fatehgarh Sahib filed a complaint against three persons, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2. The allegations, as contained in the abovementioned complaint, are that the premises of M/s City Chemist, Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib were checked by the abovementioned complainant along with Drug Inspector, Mohali in the presence of Kamal Batra, the partner and qualified person of the firm. According to complainant, during inspection, the sealed samples of drugs, i.e. N-Clav Dry Syrup, and 04 samples of tablet Acimol-MR were collected, as per prescribed rules and procedure. As per complainant, the abovementioned samples were sent to Government Analyst Punjab for testing, who on examination of the abovementioned samples, submitted a report declaring therein that the abovementioned drugs were not of sub-standard quality.

3. It has been further alleged by the complainant that the abovementioned drug was manufactured by ‘M/s Curehealth Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.’, who has been arrayed as accused No.1. According to complainant, the petitioner and Nand Lal Sharma, being Director of the manufacturer of abovementioned company, are responsible for the sub-standard quality of the drug. Hence, the complaint.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order, passed by the learned trial Court, is a non-speaking order, wherein the role attributed to the petitioner has not been explained. In addition to above, the petitioner has also alleged that the Drug Inspector was not duly notified for collection of sample, and filing of complaint, and that the necessary guidelines prescribed by DCGI were not followed in the present case. Besides this, it has also been pleaded by the petitioner that the complaint has been filed on expiry of shelf-life, which has deprived the petitioner of his right to get the second sample tested. In addition to above, the petitioner has also alleged that he cannot be vicariously liable for the commission of abovementioned offence as he has already resigned from the abovementioned company way back on 05.06.2017.

5. Heard.

6. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the learned trial Court without application of judicial mind, and that the content of the order in itself makes it abundantly clear that the learned trial Court has not considered the role attributed to the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, merely, on the basis of conjectures and surmises, the learned trial Court passed the summoning order, and that the summoning order is defective in view of the fact that in the impugned order there is no reference of taking cognizance against the petitioner or any other accused. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in various cases, i.e. in the cases of Criminal Appeal No.487 of 2025, titled as ‘M/s JM Laboratories and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another’, ‘Lalankumar Singh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra’, 2022 SCC OnLin