ARVIND DHAWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole ground on which the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned complaint by respondent No. 2, District Drugs Inspector, Ambala (1). That complaint was filed on 8.11.1990 when the expiry of drug inquestion has already been expired in December, 1989, and it is accordingly prejudice the defence of the petitioner inasmuch as they made prayer for re- analysing by the Central District Laboratory. In the reply filed by respondent No. 2 Ripan Mehta, District Drugs Inspector, Ambala-II, in para No. 3 this fact is not disputed. For the sake of reference para No. 3 is reproduced as under :- "3. That the petitioners were appraised about spurious nature of drug manufactured by them as the respondent No. 2 personally handed over the test report of drug in question to the petitioner No. 1 on 8th November, 1989 thereby complying with the provisions of section 25(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Since the petitioners were dealing in drugs so, they were very much aware of the consequences of the spurious drugs and the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, so they could promptly move to the District Drugs Inspector or the Court for re-analysis of the drug sample from the Central Drugs Laboratory within a statutory period as the expiry of the sample was December 1989 and the petitioners had the fair enough period of 28 days to make their intentions to adduce evidence in controversion of the report as provided in Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, but the petitioners have not exercised their right in their own interest due to reasons best known to them."

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner cites judgment of this Court reported as Surinder Pal Saini v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) RCR 601 where the complaint was quashed by this Court on the ground that he could not get the second sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The respondent No. 2 District Drugs Inspector Ambala (1) filed the complaint before the Magistrate after the expiry. By applying the ratio of the case Surinder Pal Saini (supra), I deem it appropriate to allow this petition. This petition is allowed and the impugned complaint and the consequential proceedings flowing therefrom are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.