IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 884/2006 A.S. Bhargava …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal Through Inspector of Drugs, Dehradun …….Respondent July 28, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 27.5.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 833/2004 State of Uttaranchal through Drugs Inspector v. A.S. Bhargava under Section 3(1), 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 65(18), 18(c) & 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the Act). Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is the Managing Director of the firm M/s Gracure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Bhivadi. On 27.5.2004, a complaint was lodged by the respondent before the court below stating therein that on 25.1.2004 at about 4 pm, the respondent on the basis of the complaint of the locals visited the sites at 507, Chhabil Bagh, Kanwaly Road, Dehradun along with police personnel where Sanjeev Sharma, Jagat Singh Rawat, Arun Kumar, Rakesh Rajpur, Nasir Khan and Upendra Singh were found manufacturing the drug Graceph (Cephalexin oral susp. I.P.) by erasing and obliterating labels bearing the mark ESI supply (Employees State Insurance) and affixing gummed labels bearing batch no. etc. and having printed on it ‘U.A. supply not for sale’. The material recovered and being used in the process of manufacturing as detailed in form 16 were seized. Custody permission of the seized drugs and other materials as per the provisions of the Act was taken. Three samples of drugs were also collected and sent to Government Analyst to ascertain whether the products contained the drug ingredients as being labeled or not, following the procedure as laid down u/s 23 of the Act. An FIR was also lodged with Kotwali, Dehradun. The petitioner/accused did not have any manufacturing or sale license at the aforesaid site. An enquiry was also made by issuing a show cause notice. The petitioner firm accepted to have produced Graceph (Cephlaxin Oral Susp. IP) but did not state clearly whether the drugs recovered and sized belong to their company. The company did not reveal even on repeated quarries as to (a) how they keep the account of their labels (b) how twenty thousand ESI printed labels were released by them (c) how the small stickers of U.A. Govt. supply on products seized was to be accounted for (d) as to how and from whom they got the rolls of gummed labels printed with same batch number for supply at Dehradun. With these averments the instant complainant was lodged alleging that the petitioner firm/accused is alleged manufacturer of the drugs in question and have violated the provisions of the Act and Rules by altering, obliterating labels and affixing U.A. Govt. supply labels at an unlicensed place, manufacturing misbranded drugs and not maintaining, keeping and producing on demand the records and thus contravened Section 3(f), 17-A read with Rule 104-A and 18(c) and Section 18(c), Rule 76, 78 and Section 18-C with 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 65(18) punishable under Section 27 of the Act. It was also prayed in the said complaint that since in the case, the police had already filed chargesheet, therefore, both the cases (police chargesheet and the instant complaint) may be amalgamated together for trial as per provisions of Section 210 CrPC. On the basis of this complaint, learned trial court summoned the petitioner/accused vide order dated 27.5.2004. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner and he has been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner due to the reason 2 that on perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent, who is the Inspector of Drugs, Dehradun as well as on perusing the reports of the Government Analyst and other materials available on record, the offences punishable under the aforesaid sections of the Act are prima facie made out against the petitioner on the basis of the above-said discussion and the trial court has rightly summoned the petitioner to face the trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. If the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence produced against the accused are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioner has rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of Court. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 28.7.2010 PRABODH 3