MODERN LABORATORIES Vs. DRUGS INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the accused in a pending case numbered as C. C. No. 575 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta. They are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 18 (a) (i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, for short, the 'Act', punishable under Section 27 (d) of that Act, on a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Kollam. The 1 st petitioner is a manufacturing company which is represented by its Director 2nd petitioner, who is separately proceeded as the 2nd accused in the case. Though the procedure for the trial of the aforesaid offence as per the provisions of the Act warranted only a summary trial, the Magistrate adopted the procedure for a warrant trial. Enquiry under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code' proceeded with examining the complainant Drugs Inspector. After evidence was recorded in that enquiry, the complainant moved an application (Annexure B) to implead the remaining Directors of the company as additional accused in the case. That application was allowed by the Magistrate vide Annexure C order, by which, petitioners 3 to 5 were added as additional accused in the case. The above petition has been filed by the accused, all of them together, for quashing the complaint and proceedings there from, with an alternate prayer for quashing Annexure C order as well, invoking the

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Though the petitioners have serious challenges over the entertainability of the complaint and prosecution proceedings launched against them, the learned counsel appearing for them knowing the limitations over the exercise of inherent powers of this Court in considering and resolving disputed questions on facts involved in the case, submitted that challenge against Annexure C order, by which, the Magistrate ordered inclusion of three Directors of the company as additional accused, that alone, is pressed into service in the present petition. Rest of the challenges raised in the petition may be allowed to be

(3.) Annexure A complaint would disclose that the complainant took samples of the drug manufactured by the company from a Primary Health Centre on 23-11-2004, and that on analysis was found to be not of standard quality. That is the basis for launching the prosecution proceedings against the manufacturing company and one of its directors. When that be so, whether in such a case, other directors of the company, at a later stage, could be implicated as additional accused invoking Section 32-A of the Act, is the question that is emerging for consideration. Section 32-A of the Act reads thus :