((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.59 OF 2000 Jagmohan Rai Agarwal & anr. Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.60 OF 2000 Jagmohan Rai Agarwal & anr. Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Amol Desai for petitioners. S.S.Pednekar, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 22th April 2009 JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The facts of both the petitioners are identical and therefore reference is made to the facts of the case in Criminal Writ Petition No.54 of 2000. 2. The applicants have been arraigned as an accused in a private complaint filed by the Drug Inspector alleging commission of various offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case made out in the complaint is ((-2-)) that the then Drugs Inspector, Kolhapur had drawn sample of "Maxizyme" Digestive Tablets manufactured by Bright Drugs Industries Pvt.Ltd. (second petitioner) of which the first petitioner is allegedly the Managing Director. The samples were drawn from one Suresh K.Kangtani, proprietor of M/s.Hindustan Drug House, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur. According to the case of the prosecution, the samples were sent to Government Analyst and the report of the Government Analyst indicated that the drug was not of standard quality. According to the prosecution, the Drugs Inspector handed over the said test report to said Suresh Kangtani and called upon him to stop the sale. According to the case of the prosecution, even the Director of Central Drugs Laboratory, Culcatta declared the said drug as "not of standard quality". An allegation has been made that the first petitioner failed to furnish relevant information though called upon to do so. Process was issued on the said complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in support of the prayer for quashing of the complaint. He pointed out that the proprietor of M/s.Hindustan Drugs House, Kolhapur is neither an authorised dealer nor a ((-3-)) distributor of the second petitioner. He submitted that the entire sale of the drugs is at Indore. Therefore, the alleged cause of action had not arisen at Kolhapur. He submitted that the said S.K.Kangtani who was allegedly found selling the drugs at Kolhapur is not shown as an accused in the complaint. He has placed reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court reported in 1989(1)-Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases-174. 3. I have perused the true copy of the complaint annexed to the petition. The case of the prosecution is that the Drugs Inspector purchased the Maxizyme Digestive Tablets manufactured by the petitioners from Suresh Kangtani, proprietor of Shri Hindustan Drugs House, at Kolhapur. The allegation of the prosecution is that the report of the chemical analysis shows that the drug was not of standard quality. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution is that the said tablets manufactured by the petitioners which were found not of standard quality were being sold at Kolhapur. It is therefore not possible at this stage to accept the submission of learned ((-4-)) counsel for the petitioner that the cause of action did not arise at Kolhapur. 4. As far as the failure to show the said Suresh as accused is concerned, that by itself is not sufficient to quash the complaint. Before the Trial Court if it is found that there is material showing complicity of the said Suresh Kangtani, appropriate orders can always be passed at appropriate stage. 5. In the circumstances, no case is made out for quashing the complaint at this stage. Accordingly, writ petitions are rejected. It is, however, made clear that all the defences of the petitioners are kept open. The learned Trial Judge will decide the complaints as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this judgement. (A.S.OKA, J.)