IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1175 of 2011 M/s Brawn Laboratories Ltd. 13, N.I.T. Industrial Area, Faridabad Police Station Industrial Area, Faridabad District Faridabad (Haryana) through Sri Harish Chand Kushwaha ….…..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand through Inspector of Drugs Uttarakhand, Dehradun. ……Respondent Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Hariom Bhakuni, Brief Holder, present for the State. Along with Criminal Misc. Application (C482) No. 1176 of 2011 1- B.R. Gupta S/o Late J.P. Gupta, Director M/s Brawn Laboratories Ltd. 13, N.I.T. Industrial Area, Faridabad Police Station Industrial Area, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana). 2- A.K. Gupta S/o Sri Shriram Gupta, Director M/s Brawn Laboratories Ltd. 13, N.I.T. Industrial Area, Faridabad Police Station Industrial Area, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana). 3- P.K.Sinha S/o Late Rajendra Prasad, General Manager (Institutional Marketing) M/S Brawn Laboratories Ltd. 13, N.I.T. Industrial Area, Faridabad Police Station Industrial Area, Faridabad, District Faridabad (Haryana) R/o House No. 265, 1st Floor, Indraprastha Colony, Sector 30-33, Faridabad (Haryana). ….…..Petitioners Versus 2 State of Uttarakhand through Inspector of Drugs Uttarakhand, Dehradun. ……Respondent Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. Hariom Bhakuni, Brief Holder, present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) By means of above two petitions filed by the petitioners, orders dated 28.09.2011 and 19.11.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Special Trial No. 10 of 2010, Drug Inspector Vs. Naval Arora and others, are sought to be quashed. 3) Brief facts of the case are that certain medicines were purchased from M/s Brawn Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi, through M/s Navchem Pharmaceuticals, by the Superintendent of B.D. Pandey Government Hospital, Pithoragarh, under the rate contract basis as allowed by the Government. However, the medicines were allegedly found of sub standard and complaint was given to Drug Inspector concerned. The Drug Inspector, after inquiry submitted a criminal complaint in the court. The accused (petitioners) were summoned to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under Section 18a (i) and 18a (vi)/27 of Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned Sessions Judge has erred in law, in rejecting the bail application, moved by the petitioners namely A.K. 3 Gupta, B.R. Gupta and P.K. Sinha, and their bail applications should have been allowed by the court concerned. 5) However, on going through the order dated 19.11.2011, this Court finds that the application has been rejected by the court concerned, as the aforesaid petitioners were not present in the court. I find no illegality in the order, for the reasons that at the time of seeking bail, the accused should have either in custody, or present in the court in person. 6) Since the trial was held up due to the non- appearance of the accused, in the circumstances, the trial court has declined to exercise the power under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., to dispense the personal attendance of the accused. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have appeared in the case so far. The trial appears to be pending since year 2006. 7) As far as, the order relating to application moved under Section 305 of Cr.P.C., is concerned, the trial court has not rejected the said application. It has been observed that the same be listed on the next date. No doubt, under Section 305 of Cr.P.C., the accused company (in the present case M/s Brawn Laboratories Ltd.) has a right to appoint its representative for the purposes of the trial, and it has appointed one Mr. Harish Chand Kushwaha for the said purpose through resolution passed by the Board of 4 Directors. As such, the trial court can pass orders on said application, so that the trial may proceed further. 8) It is pertinent to mention here that earlier petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., were filed in the year 2006, which were disposed of by this Court, vide its order dated 21.07.2010, and this Court has declined to interfere with the trial of the case. 9) In the above circumstances, both these petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are disposed of summarily, with the observation that if the petitioners B.R. Gupta, A.K. Gupta and P.K. Sinha, surrender before the court concerned, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. Thereafter, on the subsequent dates when their personal presence is not required, their application for exemption through counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., may be considered. As far as the application moved under Section 305 of Cr.P.C., is concerned, if the person appointed by the company is present in the court to represent it, the application shall be disposed of. It is further observed that since the accused are not residents of the State of Uttarakhand, local sureties shall be not insisted upon. (Stay applications No. 1592 of 2011 and 1591 of 2011, stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 28.12.2011 JM