SUNIL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for quashing the order dated January 5, 1994 (Annexure P2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide which the petitioners have been summoned for facing the charges punishable under Section 18(1)(i) read with clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE Drugs Inspector took sample of chloramphenicol IP capsules manufactured by Havell Pharmaceuticals, Bahadurgarh from the shop of M/s Kohli Medical Hall, Faridkot, owned by Jaswinder Singh. The sample was found to be of sub-standard quality. A complaint was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, on September 21, 1989 against Sham Kumar, proprietor of M/s Prince Medicos, Shop No. 15, Gandhi Market, Bathinda. Sham Kumar accused moved an application for impleading M/s Havell Pharmaceuticals, Delhi, as the accused. The application was dismissed on February 21, 1991. Sham Kumar moved another application for impleading Jaswinder Singh, Proprietor of M/s Kohli Medical Hall, Faridkot and also impleading the petitioners, who are partners of M/s Havell Pharmaceuticals, Bahadurgarh, the manufacturer of drugs in question. The Chief Judicial Magistrate vide the impugned order dated January 5, 1994, summoned the petitioners to stand trial, while he declined to summon Jaswinder Singh. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, summoning them as accused, by filing the present petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that there is an unreasonable delay in summoning the petitioners. The petitioners at best could have been summoned within a period of three years from the date of commission of the offence by them. In the present case, the report of the Government Analyst is dated January 29, 1986. The petitioners could at best be summoned by January 29, 1989. Instead they have been summoned vide order dated January 5, 1994. Thus, there is an unreasonable delay in summoning the accused.