IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.36091 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 16, 2011 GIAN KATARIA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing of Complaint No.1792/2 dated 5.12.2002 (Annexure P-1) titled 'State through Senior Drugs Inspector, Faridabad v. Sh. Gian Kataria and others', pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, for commission of offence under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Challenge is also to order of summoning dated 13.3.2003 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 24.3.2005 (Annexure P-4) vide which charges have been framed against the petitioner and his co-accused. 2 The allegations in the complaint are serious to the effect that a life saving drug known as CPDA-1, manufactured by M/s Innvol Medical India Limited, Kunnam, Tamil Nadu, was found Criminal Misc. No.36091 -M of 2010 (O&M) 2 to be not of standard quality by the Government Analyst, Haryana, Chandigarh. The drug distributed by the petitioner is anti coagulant solution, used for preservation of human blood. A report has also been received from the Director, CDL, Kolkatta, which also establishes that the drug distributed by the petitioner is not of standard quality. The drug has also been found to be misbranded. 3 Considering the nature of issue, it would not be appropriate for this court to take evidence on affidavit and counter affidavit, so as to hold that the petitioner has not committed any offence. The charges were framed vide order dated 24.3.2005 (Annexure P-4) and the present petition has been filed on 7.12.2010. The Court has been informed that the case is at the stage of taking evidence. Since the trial court is seized of the matter, no ground for interference under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is made out. 4 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 5 However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner would be at liberty to take all the grounds taken in this petition before the trial court, during the course of trial. August 16, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?