ALPHA LABORATORIES AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint No. 8/2011 (835/2007) pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for the offence under Secs. 18(a)(1) read with 16(1)(a) and 18A(vi), 18B and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (referred to herein after as 'the Act of 1940').

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated facts of the case are that the Drug Control Officer, Bikaner filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner on 14.12.2007 for the offences under the provisions of the Act of 1940. A chronological list of events relevant for the disposal of the instant misc. petition and as set out in the complaint is enumerated herein below: -

(3.) MR . Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per the admitted case set out in the complaint, the drug in question was manufactured in October, 2002 and the expiry date thereof was September, 2005. The sample was purchased by the Drug Control Officer from the vendor i.e. accused No. 1 in May, 2004. The Government analyst analysed the sample and forwarded its report on 17.8.2005 i.e. after nearly 1 year and four months from the sample being drawn. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued on 9.9.2005 by which time, the expiry date of the drug had already arrived. He submitted that all the communications sent to the petitioners regarding the drugs in question being sub -standard were forwarded after the expiry date of the drug and thus, the petitioners have been deprived of their statutory right to have the second sample of the drug analyzed through the Central Drugs Laboratory as provided under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1940. Right to have the second drug sample retested from the Central Drugs Laboratory is a mandatory right available to every person against whom a prosecution under the provisions of the Act of 1940 is proposed and the infringement thereof leads to the proceedings being vitiated. He thus prayed that the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed.