AGRON REMEDIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned APP for respondents/State.

(2.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the discharge application filed by the petitioners is pursuing the wrong remedy. In-fact, the said remedy is not available in summons case, therefore she does not press prayer clause (B) of the petition. She presses prayer clauses (C) and (D) which read as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the order of issuance of process is a stamp order which shows non application of mind. In-fact, when complaint was filed, it was expected from the Magistrate to apply the mind and by giving brief reasons order of issue process ought to have been passed. However, by passing the cryptic order, the Magistrate failed to apply his mind. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that statutory right to defend the Government Analyst's Report is violated as the complaint was filed on 9/1/2023 i.e. after five months of the expiry of the shelf life of the Drug - Atrovastain-10 Tablets. She submits that the statutory right provided under Sec. 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act ("the said Act") has been violated, therefore she seeks quashing of the entire complaint and the proceedings. She further submits that the delay is also one of the important criteria which needs consideration as the report was received by the Drug Inspector on 25/7/2022 under Sec. 25(2) of the said Act and the application for referring the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory ("CDL") was made on 2/9/2022, which according to the petitioners were made after expiry of the shelf life of the drugs. Therefore, she submits that though the sanction order is dtd. 1/8/2022, however the complaint was filed on 9/1/2023 i.e. almost after five months of the sanction order. Under these circumstances, she submits that the Court ought not to have issued summons to petitioners as the valuable right under Sec. 25(4) of the said Act has been violated and further there was delay in filing the complaint.