RANCHI, India, Nov. 5 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 6:

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the learned A.J.C.-II, Ranchi whereby and where under the learned A.J.C.-II, Ranchi has taken cognizance against the petitioners for having committed the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) read with Section 18 (a) (i) and 18 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner No.1 is the Managing Director and petitioner No.2 is the Director of the petitioner No.3- which is the company in the name and style of M/S Ornate Labs Pvt. Ltd. and which company inter alia manufactures Obimox-500, the sample of which was collected from the Drug store situated within the campus of Sadar Hospital, Ranchi on 27.11.2019 by the complainant-Drug Inspector. In compliance of the procedure prescribed, the sample was sent to the Government analyst who has reported the same to be a sub-standard quality. The report of the Government analyst was received by the Drug Inspector on 01.06.2020 and on the same day, the Drug Inspector sent the same to the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have no records to show as to on which date they received the copy of the report of the Government analyst dated 29.05.2020, which was sent by the Drug Inspector, to them on 01.06.2020.

5. On the basis of the complaint instituted by the Drug Inspector, the learned Special Judge under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has found prima facie materials for the said offence against the petitioners and ordered for issue of summons to them, vide order dated 24.11.2020 in Drugs and Cosmetics Case No.11 of 2020.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that nowhere it has been mentioned in the prosecution report that fair price was paid by the Drug Inspector at the time of collection of the sample. It is next submitted that the petitioners were not supplied with one-fourth part of the collected sample in terms of Section 23 (4) (iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is next submitted that the petitioners got deprived of their statutory rights to controvert the report of Government analyst by notifying intentions as regards adducing evidence in terms of Section 25 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is further submitted that the collection of the sample was not in accordance with law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioners, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoC4mPd4NF9g3EVjadH%2FQe1oylOep%2BzXDWXjzvAyPJ%2FqR&caseno=Cr.M.P./473/2021&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010066292021&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.