IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24 of 2008 ASHOK SHARMA Son of Sri Sharmanand Sharma, resident of 702-A, Poonam Chamber, Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018. ----------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sri Chandra Kant Jha, Inspector Drugs, Bhabhua ( Kaimur). 3. Sri Anil Kumar, Inspector of Drugs, Buxar. ------- ---- Opp.Parties ----------- 2 10-11-2008 Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who happens to be the Managing Director of a Limited Company registered under the Companies Act and running in the name and style of “ M/S Aglowmed Limited” carrying on business of manufacturing scheduled drugs including “Clompic kid” tablets is sought to be prosecuted in Complaint Case No.45((O) of 2005 has prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal prosecution as against him including the order dated 6.2.2006 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner and others under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It appears that the Drug Inspector on 22.2.2003 raided a medicine shop at Bhabhua running in the name and style of M/S Vishal Pharma and collected samples of several drugs said to be manufactured by the petitioner’s company and samples thereof were sent to the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory, Government of Bihar, for - 2 - chemical analysis. The analysis report indicated that the sample conforms the limit laid down in Schedule V of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act and Rules thereunder. At the same time the report also indicated that in the opinion of the analyst it was not of standard quality as defined in Drugs & Cosmetics Act and Rules thereunder as there were several brown spots on the surface of the tablets and hence, its appearance is mostled and hence it does not conform the standards as laid down in Schedule V of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act and Rules thereunder. The submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the report does not make out a case for prosecution as no case of the samples being adulterated or spurious had been made out. It was also pointed out that there is no Schedule V in the Act or the Rules. Similar matter fell for consideration in Criminal Misc. Case No.16058 of 2006 preferred by one A.K.Ghosh @ Ajay Kumar Ghosh, the Branch Manager of the self same Company challenging the impugned order dated 6.2.2006and having heard the matter in detail, a Bench of this Court by order dated 31.7.2007 quashed the impugned order taking cognizance. The petitioner being the Managing Director of the said Company is also entitled to similar relief. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. NKS/- (Abhijit Sinha,J)