The period of limitation for prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act begins from the first Government Analyst report disclosing the offence. A complaint filed beyond this period without condonation of delay, and a mechanical summoning order ignoring limitation, constitute an abuse of the process of law.

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2023 and for quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. COMA 1781/2023 dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-1 (Colly) filed against the petitioners under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per the allegations in the complaint, a sample of the drug “Supradyn Tablets” was allegedly drawn on 10.04.2019 from the premises of M/s Singla Medical Agencies, Patiala and was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst on 16.05.2019. The Government Analyst vide report dated 31.07.2019 declared that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards in respect of assay of Cyanocobalamin. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 25.09.2019 was issued to the manufacturer, to which reply dated 15.10.2019 was submitted, seeking re-analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. It is further submitted that the sample was thereafter sent for re-testing and as per report dated 26.06.2020, the drug was again declared as “Not of Standard Quality”. It is further contended that despite the aforesaid facts, the complaint came to be filed only on 16.05.2023, i.e. after an inordinate delay of nearly four years from the date of the Government Analyst report and about three years from the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, without any proper explanation. It is argued that such delay vitiates the proceedings and renders the complaint liable to be quashed on the ground of limitation. It is also contended that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused merely on the basis of their designation as Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the company and there are no specific averments in the complaint to show that they were in charge of and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. It is submitted that in absence of specific allegations, vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon the petitioners. It is further argued that the impugned summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and without recording satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider whether sufficient grounds existed for issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C., and the order does not reflect any reasoning or consideration of material on record. On these grounds, it is prayed that the complaint as well as the impugned summoning order be quashed.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has opposed the present petition and submitted that the complaint has been filed strictly in accordance with law and after due compliance of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is contended that the sample of the drug in question was duly drawn and sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, who vide report dated 31.07.2019 declared the same to be not of standard quality. Thereafter, upon request of the manufacturer, the sample was sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata for re-analysis, which also confirmed the earlier report vide report dated 26.06.2020. It is further submitted that after completion of the necessary procedural requirements, includi