IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3502 of 2010 1. ANIL M PATIL SON OF SRI MADAN LAXMAN PATIL, RESIDENT OF AT + POST- ShINDE, DISTRICT- NANDURBAR- 424, 412, MAHARASTRA; PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 149, SUKDEV NAGAR, RAM NAGAR RORRKEE, HARIDWAR- 247667, STATE- UTTRANCHAL. 2. RAJEEV KUMAR SINHA, SON OF SRI CHANDRA MANI KUMAR SINHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AT + POST- BIHAT, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 71/19B, NEW NEHRU NAGAR ROORKEE, HARIDWAR, STATE- UTTRAKHAN. Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshwari, Advocate. For the Opposite Party : Mr. Mayanand Jha, Advocate. ------------ 2/ 05.02.2010 Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there has been numerous statutory violations and hence, the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence under sections 18(a)(i), 18-B and 27(d) of the Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there has been violation of section 16 of the Act, Rule 46 of the Rules and that apart the report submitted by analyst is absolutely vague. In course of hearing Mr. Keshari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage, he may be permitted to raise all the issues at the time of framing of charges. Appreciating the submission learned counsel is given liberty to raise all possible aspects as permissible in - 2 - law at the time of framing of charge. With the aforesaid observation Cr. Misc. No.3502 of 2010 stands disposed of. ( Dipak Misra, C.J.) BTiwary/