IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 229 of 2008() ---------------------- ST.NO.585/2004 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA .................. PETITIONERS / ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. M/S. PFIZER LIMITED, PFIZER CENTRE, 5, PATEL ESTATE, OFF S.V.ROAD, JOGESHWARI (WEST), MUMBAI-400 102 (THROUGH MR.PRAJEET NAIR DULY AUTHORIZED). 2. SHRI HOCINE SIDI SAID, (THROUGH DR.SHANKAR KASTURI DULY AUTHORISED), C/O. PFIZER LTD., PFIZER CENTRE, 5, PATEL ESTATE, OFF. S.V.ROAD, JOGESHWEARI (WEST, MUMBAI-400102. 3. MR. JACOB CHACKO, 33/2123-A, SREEKALA BY LANE, VENNALA, KOCHI-28. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY DRUGS INSPECTOR, RAVI S.MENON, OFFICE OF DRUGS INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 229 of 2008() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S ANNEXURE - I : COPY OF COMPLAINT IN ST. NO. 585/04 BEFORE THE JFCM, ALUVA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn B.P. Ray, J. ==================================== Crl.M.C.No.229/2008 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011. ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the petitioners for alleged violation of Section 18(c) of the Act which is punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 27(d) of the Act pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Aluva as S.T.No.585/2004. The specific case of the petitioners is that there is no violation of Section 18(c) of the Act as alleged by the complainant. I am not inclined to examine the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage. If the petitioners file an appropriate application to dismiss the complaint highlighting their grievances within six weeks from today, the learned Magistrate shall consider such application and pass a reasoned order . Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Crl.M.C.No.229/2008 -:2:- personal appearance of petitioners 2 and 3 may not be insisted upon. If they file an application within the time stipulated by this Court under Section 205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with their personal appearance, the learned Magistrate shall dispense with their personal appearance on such terms and conditions as he deems fit. Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above. B.P. Ray, Judge. sl.