Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Panjon Pharma Limited vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:5987) on 30 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:5987]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5549/2019
1. M/s Panjon Pharma Limited, 107-108, Kanchan Sagar, 18-
Old Palasia, Ab Road, Indore-1, Present Address Fourth
Floor, Mann House 15-P.u.3 Commercial Scheme No. 54
A.b. Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh Through Shri Manoj
Kothari S/o Shri Naginchand Kothari Age 47 Years, R/o E-
42, Saket Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.
2. M/s Panjon Pharma Limited, 17/396, Chopasani Housing
Board, Jodhpur (No Office At Present But Impleaded As
Party Respondent).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
30/01/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint
No.8/2011 (835/2007) pending in the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner for the offence under Sections 18(a)
(1) read with 16(1)(a) and 18A(vi), 18B and 22(1)(cca) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (referred to herein after as 'the
Act of 1940').
3. The manufacture firm M/s. Alpha Laboratories, Pigdamber &
Ors. preferred an S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1840/2013. The
said misc. petition was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court elaborately discussing the issue involved.
4. For ready reference the relevant paras of judgment are
reproduced hereunder:-
[2025:RJ-JD:5987] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5549/2019]
"Heard and considered the arguments advanced at
the bar and perused the material available on the record.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Medicamen
Biotech Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector, AIR
2008 SC 1939 dealing with the provisions of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 held that delay in intimating the
accused about the report of the Government Analyst, which
results in the expiry date of the drug being lapsed,
tantamounted to denial of exercise of right by the accused
to challenge the report of the Government Analyst under
Section 25 of the Act, and vitiates the proceedings. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment held as
below:
"We find that the aforesaid interpretation supports
the case of the appellants inasmuch they had
been deprived of the right to have the fourth
sample tested from the Central Drugs Laboratory.
It is also clear that the complaint had been filed
on the 2nd July 2002 which is about a month
short of the expiry date of the drug and as such
had the accused-appellant appeared before the
Magistrate even on 2nd July 2002 it would have
been well nigh impossible to get the sample tested
before its expiry. In the affidavit filed to the
petition by Dr. D. Rao, Deputy Drugs Controller,
and in arguments before us, it has been
repeatedly stressed that the delay in sending of
the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory had
occurred as the appellant had avoided service of
summons on it till 9th May 2005. This is begging
the question. We find that there is no explanation
as to why the complaint itself had been filed about
a month before the expiry of the shelf-life of the
drug and concededly the filing of the complaint
had nothing to do with the appearance of the
accused in response to the; notices which were to
be issued by the Court after the complaint had
been filed. Likewise, we observe that the requests
for re-testing of the drug had been made by the
appellant in August/September 2001 as would be
clear from the facts already given above and there
is absolutely no reason as to why the complaint
could not have been filed earlier and the fourth
sample sent for re-testing well within time. We
are, therefore, of the opinion that the facts of the
case suggest that the appellants have been
deprived of a valuable right under Sections 25(3)
and 25(4) of the Act which must necessitate the
quashing of the proceedings against them."
This Court examined the issue in detail in the case of
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. & anr. vs. State of Rajasthan &
anr. (S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.205/2009) decided on
23.5.2012 and held that failure to intimate the accused
about the report of the State analyst within a reasonable
time of the expiry date has the effect of deprivation of the
[2025:RJ-JD:5987] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5549/2019]
right available to all the accused who desire to challenge
the report of the State analyst by having the second sample
retested through the Central Drugs Laboratory. This Court
held that the manufacturer too has the right to be intimated
about the report of the State Analyst and to challenge its
report under Section 25(3) of the Act.
In the case at hand, the facts are graver. Herein, the
first intimation, to the petitioner being the manufacturer,
regarding the drugs in question being sub-standard, was
sent nine months after the expiry date of the drug had
lapsed. The petitioner immediately informed the Drug
Control Officer of its intention to challenge the report of
State analyst by having the second sample analysed from
the Central Drugs Laboratory but by that time, the expiry
date of drug had already lapsed. Thus, it is obvious that the
delay which has been occasioned by the prosecution in
communicating the report of the Government Analyst to the
petitioners resulted into them being deprived of the
statutory right to challenge the report of the Government
Analyst as provided under Sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the
Act and thus, the prosecution of the petitioners in this case
is vitiated.
As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court
has no hesitation in holding that the petitioners' prosecution
in this case for the offences under the Act of 1940 is not
permissible and is liable to be quashed."
5. In light of the aforesaid order, the instant misc. petition too
deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the
complaint no.8/2011 (835/2007) pending in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner are illegal and amount to abuse of
process of court and thus are hereby quashed qua the petitioners
only. The proceedings shall however continue against the other
accused. It is made clear that none of the observations made
herein above shall prejudice the case of either the prosecution or
the remaining accused at the trial. Stay petition also stands
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
5-chhavi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
