JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This petition Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the orders of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur dated January 24, 2003 in Criminal Revision No. 5/10 of 2001. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, few facts may be noticed: Petitioner P.S. Chhatwal is the Managing Director of M/s. Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Issapur in the District of Patiala (Punjab), whereas, Petitioner No. 2 A.I.S. Bedi is the Executive Director of this Company. The Drugs Inspector on February 3, 1999, inspected the premises of M/s. Aman Medical Store located near Primary Health Centre, Malokhar in village Malohar, P.O. Chakoh of Tehsil Sadar in the Districtof Bilaspur. He purchased a sample of drug "Cipromac" (Ciprofloxacin Suspension) manufactured by Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., the company of the petitioners. One sealed container of the sample was sent to the Government Analyst at Kandaghat who found the sample to be not of standard quality. Respondent Nand Kishore, proprietor of M/s. Aman Medical Store, was informed about the report of the Government Analyst and supplied with a copy of the report of analysis. He was also asked to supply the purchase vouchers of the drug in question. M/s. Aman Medical Store informed the Drugs Inspector that he purchased the drug in question from Rajesh Rawal, Partner M/s. Bharat Medical Stores, Purana Bazar, Sundernagar by invoice dated June 8, 1998. Mr. D.K. Rawal, respondent, partner of M/s. Bharat Medical Store disclosed, pursuant to the inquiry by the Drugs Inspector, that this drug was purchased from M/s. Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Issapur. The Drugs Inspector accordingly informed Torque Pharmaceuticals about the report of the Public Analyst that the drug manufactured by them being not of standard quality. The Director of M/s. Torque Pharmaceuticals informed the Drugs Inspector to get the sample re-tested in a manner and method suggested by him in his letter. Drugs Inspector applied to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur on July 14, 1999 for the analysis of the second part of the sample from the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. The Central Drugs Laboratory Calcutta also opined, after analysis of the sample, that the sample was below the standard prescribed. 3. Drugs Inspector applied to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur on July 14, 1999 for the analysis of the second part of the sample from the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. The Central Drugs Laboratory Calcutta also opined, after analysis of the sample, that the sample was below the standard prescribed. 3. Drugs Inspector filed a complaint under Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as "The Act", against the petitioners, Nand Kishore, Proprietor of M/s. Aman Medical Stores from where the drug was purchased by the Drugs Inspector for the purpose of analysis, Devinder Kumar Rawal, partner of M/s. Bharat Medical Stores distributor of the drug who supplied the drug to M/s. Aman Medical Store and Rajesh Rawal, second partner of M/s. Bharat Medical Store. 4. The petitioners moved an application under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistarte, for dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that the sample of the drug sold by M/s. Bharat Medical Store to M/s. Aman Medical Store was not in fact sold bv them and the drug sold by them to the distributor was not the drug of which the sample was drawn. 5. Learned trial Magistrate found that M/s. Aman Medical Store purportedly purchased the drug, of which sample was taken by the Drugs Inspector on June 8, 1998 from M/s. Bharat Medical Store, whereas, the drug was supplied to M/s. Bharat Medical Store by the Company of the petitioners on September 23,1998 and reached the conclusion that the sample of the drug supplied by the present petitioners to M/s. Bharat Medical Store could not have been purchased by the Drugs Inspector from M/s. Aman Medical Store on June 8, 1998 and therefore, the drug in question was not connected with the purchase voucher produced by M/s. Bharat Medical Store and proceeded to drop the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Aggrieved, accused Davinder Kumar Rawal and Rajesh Rawal filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur who by his impugned judgment, set aside the orders of learned trial Magistrate and directed the trial of the petitioners in accordance with law. 6. Aggrieved, accused Davinder Kumar Rawal and Rajesh Rawal filed revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur who by his impugned judgment, set aside the orders of learned trial Magistrate and directed the trial of the petitioners in accordance with law. Learned Sessions Judge concluded that the petitioners have themselves admitted that the drug in question batch No. 28898 was supplied by them by a letter to M/s. Bharat Medical Store and therefore, they cannot wriggle out of "their responsibility by denying the supply of the drug in question." 7. Dis-satisfied, the petitioners have filed this petition. 8. Having heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2, I do not find any merit in this petition. 9. Section 16 of the Act prohibits the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics, which is not of a standard quality or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious. Clause (a) of Section 18 specifically prohibits the manufacture for sale or for distribution or sale or stock or exhibits for sale or distribute any drug, which is not of a standard quality, misbranded, adulterated or supurious. Section 18 may be reproduced for convenience: "18. Clause (a) of Section 18 specifically prohibits the manufacture for sale or for distribution or sale or stock or exhibits for sale or distribute any drug, which is not of a standard quality, misbranded, adulterated or supurious. Section 18 may be reproduced for convenience: "18. Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics.— From such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other person on this behalf— (a) manufacture for sale (or for distribution), or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for ^kle or distribute— (i) any drug which is not of a standard quality, or is misbranded, adulterated or supurious; (ii) any cosmetic which is not of a standard quality or is misbranded or spurious; (iii) any patent or proprietary medicine, unless there is displayed in the prescribed manner on the label or container thereof (the true formula or list of active ingredients contained in it together with the quantities thereof); (iv) any drug which by means of any statement, design or device accompanying it or by any other means, purports or claims (to prevent, cure or mitigate) any such disease or ailment, or to have any such other effect as may be prescribed; (v) any cosmetic containing any ingredient which may render it unsafe or harmful for use under the directions indicated or recommended; (vi) any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the provisions of this chapter or any rule made thereunder; (b) sell, or stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic, which has been imported or manufactured in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule made there-under; (c) manufacture for sale or for distribution or sell, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale, or distribute any drug or cosmetic, except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to prescribed conditions, of. small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis: Provided further that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the manufacture for sale or for distribution, sale. small quantities of any drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis: Provided further that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Board, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit, subject to any conditions specified in the notification, the manufacture for sale or for distribution, sale. Stocking or exhibiting or offering for sale or distribution of any drug or class of drugs not being of standard quality." 10. So far manufacturer is concerned, a bare perusal of Section 18 shows, manufacture or drug which is not of a standard quality itself is an offence and the fact whether it was supplied to the person from whom sample was taken for the purpose of analysis on a particular date or not is immaterial. Such an offence is punishable under Section 27 of the Act. 11. A perusal of record shows that M/s. Bharat Medical Store sold the drug in question by a cash memo No. 000130 dated June 6, 1998. It is admitted position that the drug cipromac (Ciprofloxacin Suspension 30 ml.) sample of which was taken by the Drugs Inspector bore batch No. 28898 and the Company, of which the petitioners are the Managing Director and Director, manufactured this batch of the drug. This fact is so apparent from the letter (Annexure-M) on the file of the trial Court. In this letter Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., wrote to M/s. Bharat Medical Store, Sundemagar saying that the batch number of item No. 5 Cipromac Suspn. 30 ml is 28898 instead of 51298 as mentioned in the purchase voucher. This apart, the Company wrote to the Drugs Inspector on June 12,1999 admitting that Cipromac Suspension (ciprofloxacin suspension) Batch No. 28898 was manufactured by them. Letter reads: "TORQUE PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD. ISAPUR, DAPPAR-140506. Dated 12.6.1999 Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Drugs Inspector, C.M.O. Office, (HAMIRPUR (H.P.) Subject ; Your letter No. Drugs 99/29 dated 1.6.1999. Respected Sir, This is in reference to your letter cited above on the subjectof Analysis of our Cipromac Suspension (ciprofloxacin suspension) B.No. 28898 alongwith the drug Analysis report No. CTL-Drugs/98-2466 dated 20.5.1999, wherein the worthy Government Analyist has declared our product is not of Standard quality mentioning 73.3-mg/5ml. instead of 125-mg/5ml. Our reply is as below : Ciprofloxacin Hel being a very bitter salt has been manufactured in the form of suspension by reacting it with the Rasin Indion-234. instead of 125-mg/5ml. Our reply is as below : Ciprofloxacin Hel being a very bitter salt has been manufactured in the form of suspension by reacting it with the Rasin Indion-234. The drug having the Cationic moiety gets exchanged with the rasin without effecting the bioavailability of the product in presence of weak acid cation exchangers. This makes the drug tasteless in the suspension but the particle size is of less then 100 BSS mesh still remaining unexchanged hence masking the taste of the drug to a greater extent. If the Preparation is tested for assay without getting it released from the cationic Ion Exchange rasins the assay turns out to be 70.68 mg/5ml as per our report enclosed, but if it is treated with 0.1 Hcl and allow it to rest for 4-6 hour with intermittent shaking the resinate thus received after shaking is tested by U.V. Spectrophotometeric method it shall give you 100% results i.e. 126.08 mg/5 ml. (as per our test report attached). On receipt of your letter we have rechecked our sample with both the methods and test reports are attached herewith for your kind reference. You are requested to kindly get the sample retested in the manner as mentioned above and we hope you shall also get the same results. We assure you of best co-operation always. Thanking you, Yours sincerely For Torque Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Sd/- Encls. 1. Our Lab Reports. Director. 2. Standard graph of Ciprofloxacin Hel (1 on Exchange). C.C. to 1. Drugs Controller H.P. Shimla-9. 2. Drugs Controller Punjab". (emphasis given) 12. A reading of this letter shows that the Company admitted that Cipromac Suspension (ciprofloxacin suspension) Batch No. 28898 was manufactured by this Company when it says "our Cipromac Suspension". 13. Prima facie, the documents placed on record show that ciprofloxacin suspension batch No. 28898 of which sample was purchased by the Drugs Inspector for the purpose of analysis was manufactured by the Company of which the present petitioners are the Managing Director and Director and therefore are liable to be proceeded with. 14. The order of learned Sessions Judge, in my view, is not visited by any jurisdictional error. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. 15. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed to be an observation on merits of the case, which shall be decided by the learned trial Magistrate at its own merit. 14. The order of learned Sessions Judge, in my view, is not visited by any jurisdictional error. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. 15. Any observation made herein above shall not be construed to be an observation on merits of the case, which shall be decided by the learned trial Magistrate at its own merit. 16. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Magistrate on November 12, 2003. The records of the courts below be remitted back forthwith. Petition dismissed. -