Omega Biotech Ltd vs Drugs Inspector Jammu
2023 Latest Caselaw 623 j&K

                                                                           Sr. No. 16


         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU

                                                     CRMC No. 778/2017
                                                     IA No. 1/2017

Omega Biotech Ltd.                                  .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


q
                       Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
                  vs
Drugs Inspector Jammu                                            ..... Respondent(s)
                       Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                                     ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the complaint

titled, 'Drugs Inspector, Jammu vs. M/s M. M. Medicate & Ors.'

under Section 18(a) (i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as trial court).

2. Besides the other grounds raised in the present petition, it is also stated

that the learned trial court has issued the process against the petitioner

without application of mind.

3. Response stands filed by the respondent.

4. Record was called.

5. A perusal of the record reveals that the complaint titled, 'Drugs

Inspector, Jammu vs. M/s M. M. Medicate & Ors' under Section 18(a)

(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was filed

before the learned trial court on 25.05.2015 and thereafter, the

respondent produced certain documents before the trial court. On

10.07.2017 and 14.09.2017, none had appeared before the learned trial

court on behalf of the respondent. Suddenly, on 24.11.2017, learned

trial court observed that the petitioner and other accused have not been

served till date and as such, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were ordered to be

served through Process Serving Agency whereas the accused including

the petitioner were ordered to be served through registered post. Thus,

it is evident that the learned trial court has issued the process

mechanically and without forming any opinion as to whether there is

sufficient ground for issuing the process against the petitioner or not.

6. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled,

'Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and

others (1998) 5 SCC 749.'

7. In view of the above, the order dated 24.11.2017 is found to be bad in

the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is quashed. Learned trial

court shall pass fresh orders and in the event, learned trial court issues

the process against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to

avail appropriate remedy as available under law. Needless to say that

the learned trial court shall issue the process only after following the

mandate of law laid down by the Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and

another vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC

749.

8. Disposed of.

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

Jammu 05.04.2023 Neha Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No