1 Cr. M.P. No.1804 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.1804 of 2024 ------ M/S Acme Pharmaceuticals Ltd, At Plot No.1216/28, Phase-IV GIDC Estate, Naroda, Ahmedabad; 382330, P.O., P.S.-Bodakdev, District Ahmedabad, State Gujarat. Present Address: Acme House, Zion Z1, near Avalon Hotel, Sindhu Bhavan Road P.O. + P.S.-Bodakdev & District-Ahmedabad (Gujarat) through its Proprietor namely, Dashratbhai Kalidas Patel, aged about 75 years, Son of Late Kalidas Patel, Resident of Utsav Bunglos, Opp. Sal Hospital, P.O. + P.S.-Thaltej & District-Ahmedabad (Gujarat). … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, and 2. Amresh Kumar son of not known; Drug Inspector, Garhwa; At Sadar Hospital Premises; P.O. & P.S.-Medininagar, District-Palamau. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopal K. Sinha, Advocate : Ms. Priyanka Boby, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with C.G. Case No.61 of 2015 and to quash the further proceedings of that case. 2 Cr. M.P. No.1804 of 2024 3. The brief fact of the case is that the Drug Inspector, Hazaribagh who was in additional charge of Palamau, on 30.05.2005 took samples of medicine CLOMOBAC Batch No.APC 5002 expiry date in October, 2006 from Gandhi Medical Agency, Garhwa and the same was sent for examination to C.D.L. Kolkata. By the report dated 20.12.2006, C.D.L., Kolkata declared the said sample to be not of standard quality. By the letter of the Drug Inspector to the petitioner-Acme Pharmaceuticals Ltd. dated 13.06.2007, the sample of CLOMOBAC Capsule Batch No.APC 5002, expiry date October, 2006, the report of the CDL Kolkata was intimated to the petitioner but the prosecution report was submitted after lapse of nine years from the date of collection of the sample i.e. on 02.02.2015 and the cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 18 (a)(i) & 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa on 18.03.2015; by condoning the delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian & Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 and submits that the complaint was barred by limitation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of MACSEN LABORATORIES and others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another in W.P.Cr. No.894 of 2023 wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Court relied upon Section 25(3)(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and considering the fact of that case inter alia that the accused lost the right to re-examine the sample provided to the accused within time. 3 Cr. M.P. No.1804 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-accused has lost the right to re-examine the sample provided to the accused within time and in this case as after expiry of the drug, the report was provided to the petitioner that the drug was of substandard quality and in that view of the matter, the right of the petitioner of getting the sample re-examined has already been taken away and the same being occurred due to the latches on the report of the prosecution, hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State fairly submits that report regarding the sample being of substandard quality was intimated to the petitioner after expiry of the period of the medicine and beyond the period prescribed in law. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as a valuable right of re-examination of the sample by the petitioner has been frustrated by the laches on the part of the prosecution. The undisputed fact remains that the sample was collected on 30.05.2005 and the expiry date of the medicine was October, 2006. There is no material in the record to suggest as to when the sample was sent for examination to the Central Drugs Laboratory. The report of the Central Drugs Laboratory was undisputedly received on 20.12.2006. There is no material to suggest as to whether the Central Drugs Laboratory, tested the sample after its expiry date or before it. There is no explanation as to why, after a delay of about 6 months only, the petitioner was intimated about the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory on 13.06.2007. As undisputedly, on 13.06.2007, the expiry date of 4 Cr. M.P. No.1804 of 2024 the medicine was over, so obviously the petitioner was deprived of its statutory right to challenge the same. To cap it all, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 9 years in institution of the complaint. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law and this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with C.G. Case No.61 of 2015, be quashed and set aside. 9. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 18.03.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa in connection with C.G. Case No.61 of 2015, is quashed and set aside. 10. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of March, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj