w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ajay Bhatia & Others v/s State of Rajasthan


Company & Directors' Information:- S N BHATIA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999DL1976PTC008293

Company & Directors' Information:- BHATIA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL1986PTC024822

Company & Directors' Information:- K. BHATIA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51420MH1960PTC011708

    Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2023 of 2015

    Decided On, 28 July 2015

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

    For the Petitioners: M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate assisted by Vinay Kothari, Abhishek Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondent: R.K. Bohra, Public Prosecutor.



Judgment Text

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the proceedings in Case No.407/2004 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector before the court below, the sample of drug was collected from the shop of accused No. 3 on 15.1.1999 and expiry date of said drug was June 2000.

3. It is contended that the petitioners No. 1 to 3 are the partners of manufacturer firm and the petitioner No. 4 is manufacturer firm. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per para three of the complaint, the report of analyst was received by the Drug Inspector on 3.2.2000, however, as per para six of the complaint, the manufacturer firm has received the notice for the first time on 11.12.2000. It is further argued that since the manufacturer firm has received the notice for the first time after expiry date of the drug, of which sample was collected, they have been deprived from the opportunity of getting the samples tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory as per the provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered inMedicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector reported in (2008) 7 SCC 196and has argued that since the petitioners' manufacturer firm has been deprived from the opportunity of getting the samples tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory, the pending proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Issue notice.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and prays for four weeks' time to file reply to this criminal misc. petition. Time prayed for is

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

granted. 7. Put up after four weeks as prayed. 8. Meanwhile, further proceedings in Case No. 407/2004 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara shall remain stayed.
O R