( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra, through Shri V.B. Taskedkar, Drug Inspector in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Jalgaon. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Shri G.C. Sharma s/o Ratan Sharma, R/o 125, N.A.C., Shivalik Enclave, Manimajra Chandiarh V.T., M/s Toshika International Ltd., 290, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Toshika International Ltd., a firm having 2 directors stated as Accused No.1, Accused No. 2, having Factory situated at 190, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. RESPONDENTS ..... Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, APP for the appellant. None for the respondents. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th October, 2009] PER COURT : ( 2 ) 1. This appeal is directed against judgement of acquittal rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon whereby the respondents came to be acquitted for offences punishable under section 18 (a) (i), 17 (B) (b) read with section 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is punishable under section 27 and 34 (i) of the said Act. 2. The criminal case was instituted against the respondents and accused No. 3 “M/s Toshika International Limited” on the ground that the sample of Framycetin Ophthalmic solution, Batch No. 800 was collected from the ESI Hospital, Jalgaon and was found to be below the standard. 3. The impugned judgement of acquittal is based on material defect noticed during course of the trial, in respect of the service of notice to the respondents. It appears that the copy of the report was not delivered to the respondents within a reasonable time so as to facilitate them to challenge the report of analysis as provided under section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The trial Court found that before the respondents were summoned, the shelf-life of the drug had expired. ( 3 ) Obviously, their right to get the drug analysed has been frustrated. Considering the reasons ascribed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, there appears no substantial reason to interfere with the impugned judgement of acquittal. 4. In the result, the leave to appeal is refused. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapl705-06