[2026:RJ-JP:17418]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2123/2023 Rakesh Goyal Son Of Shri Amrit Lal Goyal, Resident Of House No. 534, Sector 21, Panchkula, Partner Of M/s Orison Pharma International, Village Khari, Mauza Oglii, Kala Amb, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Prahlad Kumar Meena, Drugs Control Officer, Kota, Office Of Civil Surgeon, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jain with Mr. Akshay Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

seeking quashing of Complaint No. 839771/2018 dated 09.05.2018 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kota, for offences under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned complaint is manifestly illegal and amounts to abuse of the process of law in as much as the alleged discrepancy in the drug in question was merely on account of a bona fide and inadvertent printing/packaging error without any criminal intent.

3. It is contended that the composition of the drug was otherwise within permissible standards and the issue was only with respect to mislabeling, which stands duly explained by the petitioner in his reply submitted to the show cause notices annexed as Annexures 13,15 and 17.

4. It is further submitted that the drug in question was never released for public consumption and remained within the control of the authorities and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to any person. Learned counsel has also argued that there is no specific averment in the complaint attracting vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Act of 1940 so as to fasten criminal liability upon the present petitioners and that the proceedings have not been initiated mechanically and without proper application of judicial mind.

5. It has further been contended, with reference to the grounds taken, that the court at Kota lacks territorial jurisdiction and that the complaint suffers from non-compliance of mandatory statutory provisions and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:

1. “Virender Kansal & Ors. Vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors”. Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 Cr.P.C No. 362 of 2019; Order Dated 06.09.2021

2. “State of Haryana Vs Brij Lal Mittal & Ors”. (1998) 5 SCC 343

3. “Standard Chartered Bank Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors”. (2016) 6 SCC 62

4. “Cheminova India Ltd & Anr. Vs State of Punjab &

Ors”. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 573

5. “Lalankumr Singh & Ors Vs State of Maharashtra

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383

6. “Sumit Lal C. Shah & Ors Vs State of Rajasthan

1983 SCC OnLine Raj 409

7. “The State of Telangana Vs M/s. Sri Agpa Pharmaceuticals & Ors”. Criminal Appeal No. 1467 Of

2009; 18.07.2022

8. “Rajansh Thukral Vs State of Punjab & Anr And other connected matters” 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 8509.

9. “State of Maharashtra Vs R.A Chandawarkar & Ors”.

[1999(2) Mh.L.J]

10. “Johnson & Johnson Ltd., Himachal Pradesh & Anr Vs State of Andhra pradesh and Anr.” Crl. P. No. 2277 of 2012.; Order Dated 14.10.2014

11.“State of Nagaland & Ors. Vs Bendangrenla” (2019) 4 Gauhati Law Reports 650

12. “Medisearch Laboratories & Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors”. S.B. Criminl Miscellaneous (Petition)

No. 2096/2014; Order Dated 07.08.2019

13. “M/s Nandani Medical Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., & Ors.

Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.” S.B Criminal Misc (Pet.)

No. 7821/2023 Order dated: 30.01.2025

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition and submitted that the allegations made in the complaint clearly disclose commission of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 19