ANIL TANTIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dt. 09.10.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Case No. 395/2007 (State vs. Firm M/s. Raghaw Medical Store & Ors.) taking cognizance initiated against the petitioner and others for the offences under Secs. 27, 28 and 28A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act of 1940'). Succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the Drug Control Officer, Sri Ganganagar inspected the shop of M/s. Raghaw Medical Store on 12.03.2007 on receiving an information about expired medicines and physician samples being sold by the shopkeeper. At the time of inspection, the partner of firm Mr. Ratan Lal Garg was present but the registered pharmacist was found absent. On the inspection being made, the medicines of which date had expired as well as physician samples were found lying with the other medicines. The form No. 16 (inspection memo) was prepared and offending medicines were seized and sealed in a carton after taking receipt from Ratan Lal Garg. Thereafter, during the course of enquiry, a notice was given to the firm for disclosing the details of its partners on which a document was submitted by the firm, as per which, the present petitioner and Mr. Ratan Lal Garg were stated to be partners of the firm.

(2.) A complaint was filed against the firm, its partners and the registered pharmacist in the Court of C.J.M., Sri Ganganagar for the infringement of various provisions of the Act of 1940. The learned C.J.M. proceeded to take cognizance on the complaint and summoned the petitioner as well as other accused persons by the impugned order. Hence, the instant misc. petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dt. 09.10.2007 and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint.

(3.) PER contra, learned PP has refuted the arguments advanced on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that all these arguments and objections can be raised by the petitioner at the trial because at the stage of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has to only see the existence of prima -facie material and the evidence in detail need not be considered at that stage. He thus submits that the instant misc. petition is liable to be dismissed.