MMG HEALTH CARE, SIRMOUR, HIMACHALA PRADESH Vs. STATE AT INSTANCE OF DRUGS INSPECTOR, CHIKKABALLAPURA CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.296/2012 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Chickballapur.

(2.) The facts leading to prosecution of the petitioners are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised threefold contentions. Firstly, he contends that the test report relied on by the complainant indicates that complete analysis of the sample could not be carried out due to insufficient quantity of the sample, which means that the sample sent to the laboratory was not subjected to complete analysis and therefore, on the basis of the said inconclusive report, prosecution should not have been launched against the petitioners. Secondly, in para 24 of the complaint it is stated that accused No.5 namely Sri.Sunil Kumar Ray, nominee of accused No.1-firm was responsible for the day to day affairs of the accused No.1-firm and hence prosecution of the petitioners is not tenable by virtue of Section 34 of the Act. Thirdly, the prosecution initiated against the petitioners is barred by limitation. As per the averments made in the complaint the samples were drawn on 02.07.2009 and the test report dated 15.07.2009 was received by the respondent on 16.07.2009, whereas the complaint is filed on 14.08.2012. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with maximum imprisonment upto two years. Therefore, by virtue of Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C., the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the receipt of the test report.