1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.986 OF 2000 1. M/s Bright Drug Industries Ltd., Indore through its Managing Director 2. Mr Jagmohan Rai Agarwal, Bright Drug Industries Ltd. 45-A, Sector F, Sanwer Road, Indore ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra 2. Drug Inspector, Food & Drugs Administration, Osmanabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.V. Natu, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, A.P.P. for respondent no.1; Respondent no.2 served. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, J DATE : 26th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : This Criminal Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been placed before me for admission. This is of the year 2000. In the light of the facts which are involved in the present 2 application, this Criminal Application is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this application is heard finally at this stage. 2. The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this application may be stated thus :- The complainant in this proceeding i.e. respondent no.2, who was the Drug Inspector at the material time serving in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Osmanabad obtained sample of the drug "Maxidex - F 12" capsule for analysis from the custody of applicant no.2 from a Medicine and Drugs Stores, Civil Hospital, Osmanabad. Necessary panchnama to that effect came to be drawn. As per the provisions of the section 23 (4) (iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 the Drug Inspector ought to have delivered one sample to the applicants, which the Drug Inspector failed to do so. After the petitioner received a copy of the test report dated 6.12.1995 on 18.12.1995, the applicants addressed a communication on 6.1.1996 calling upon the Inspector to forward the sample to the Central Laboratory at Calcutta. The applicants in their communication controverted the findings recorded by the Analyst in its report. A complaint came to be filed against the present applicants for an offence punishable under section 18(a) (vi) read with section 16 and 34 punishable under section 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioners 3 immediately thereafter have filed the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the complaint which is registered as Regular Criminal Case No.230 of 1996, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. 3. Mr Natu, learned Counsel for the applicant has urged before me that on account of the sample not being forwarded to the Central Laboratory at Calcutta, the valuable right of the petitioners stand defeated and in the light of the several judgments of this Court, the complaint which is filed by the respondent - Drug Inspector is required to be quashed and set aside. The learned A.P.P. has urged before me that this is a ground which is available to the applicants/petitioners during trial and the consideration of the same at this stage where there is no evidence would be premature. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s Zim Laboratories Ltd. & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2000 (5) Bom. C.R. 282, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court in similar set of facts, held that denial of the opportunity to the petitioners for getting the part of the sample of the drug re-analysed from the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta amounts to depriving the petitioners from exercising their valuable statutory right which goes to the root of the matter and 4 adversely affects the prosecution. In that light of the matter, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition which was filed and quashed and set aside the complaint case. 5. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & anr. vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector, 2008 (7) SCC 196. In this judgment the Calcutta High Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioners therein questioning the institution of the criminal case in the face of denial of right to have the sample analysed from the Central Drug Laboratory at Calcutta. The Calcutta High Court held that such proceedings were premature as there was no evidence at that stage. The Supreme Court while examining the case found that the petitioners/accused therein had immediately informed the Drug Inspector that the report was not acceptable to them and demanded that the sample be sent for analysis. The Supreme Court, therefore, found that the findings of the Analyst stood controverted by the accused and in the face of such denial the valuable right of the petitioners/accused had been frustrated. In that light of the matter, therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the prosecution against the petitioners/accused. 6. In the present case, according to me both the judgments cited before me squarely answer the issue involved ion the present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that light of the 5 matter, this Criminal Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and Regular Criminal Case No.230 of 1996 1996 stands quashed. The applicants stand discharged from the aforesaid criminal case with no order as to costs. ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/criap986.00