JUDGMENT 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. 3/2008 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu for the offences under Sections 27B(1) and 27D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (referred to herein after as 'the Act of 1940'). 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Drugs Inspector, Churu filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu on 3.1.2008 against the petitioners ; Vijay Singh, proprietor & registered Pharmacist - Vijay Medical Store, Rajaldesar ; Vijay Medical Store, Rajaldesar ; Anjani Kumar - owner of Supreme Pharma, Sardul Colony, Bikaner ; and Supreme Pharma, Sardul Colony, Bikaner. 4. As per the allegations levelled in the complaint, the Drugs Inspector conducted the inspection of the shop named Vijay Medical Store, Rajaldesar on 1.4.2004. While the inspection was being carried out, the Drugs Inspector expressed his intention to take sample of Nimesulide Dispersible Tablet (NIME) Batch No. 214, Manufacture Date May, 2003 and Expiry Date April, 2006, manufactured by the petitioner no. 1. After following due process of law, the sample of medicine was purchased by the Drugs Inspector and the sample of medicine was divided in four parts. The cost of medicine was paid to Vijay Medical Store, Rajaldesar. One of the samples of the seized medicine was forwarded to the Government Analyst, Jaipur. The Government Analyst analysed the sample and vide report dated 17.2.2006, the drug was opined to be sub standard. The Drugs Inspector by a registered letter dated 25.2.2006 asked Supreme Pharma, Bikaner to disclose the details about its procurement of the medicines. Supreme Pharma in turn by its registered letter dated 28.2.2006 intimated the Drugs Inspector that the medicine had been purchased from M/s. Vivid Labs Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. The bills of purchase were also sent to the Drugs Inspector. Thereafter, the Drugs Inspector vide letter dated 26.3.2006 sent a copy of the report of Government Analyst, Jaipur to Vivid Laboratory and its Directors but no reply was received from the manufacturer. Ultimately, after procuring the requisite sanction etc., the complaint as stated above was lodged by the Drugs Inspector in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu. 5. Thereafter, the Drugs Inspector vide letter dated 26.3.2006 sent a copy of the report of Government Analyst, Jaipur to Vivid Laboratory and its Directors but no reply was received from the manufacturer. Ultimately, after procuring the requisite sanction etc., the complaint as stated above was lodged by the Drugs Inspector in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu. 5. The petitioners were summoned to face the trial and they have now approached this Court by way of the instant miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the proceedings of the complaint. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the medicine in question was manufactured in May, 2003,and the expiry date thereof was April, 2006. He contended that the sample was purchased by the Drugs Inspector in April, 2004. The State Laboratory analysed the sample after a great delay of twenty two (22) months from the date of forwarding of the sample. He urged that for the first time, the intimation about the drug having been found to be substandard on analysis, was sent to the petitioners just when the expiry date of the drug was approaching. He thus submitted that because of the belated analysis of the drug by the state laboratory and the belated communication of the report to the petitioners, the petitioners' right to have the second sample of the drug analysed through the Central Drugs Laboratory as provided under Section 25 of the Act of 1940, has been violated. He thus prayed that the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. 7. A reply has been filed to the petition by the Drugs Inspector. The learned Public Prosecutor adhering to the contents of the reply argued that the report of the Government Analyst was communicated to the petitioners vide a letter dated 26.3.2006. The petitioners chose not to reply to the said letter and thus they are not entitled to raise the plea of having being deprived of their right to have the second sample of the seized drug analysed from the Central Laboratory. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. 9. Certain facts which are undisputed from the record are enumerated hereunder for proper appreciation of the arguments advanced at the bar:- 1. The sample of the drug was collected by the Drugs Inspector on 1.4.2004. 2. 8. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record. 9. Certain facts which are undisputed from the record are enumerated hereunder for proper appreciation of the arguments advanced at the bar:- 1. The sample of the drug was collected by the Drugs Inspector on 1.4.2004. 2. For the reasons best known to the prosecuting agency, the sample was not analysed by the Government Analyst for a period of nearly 22 months from the same having been forwarded to the Laboratory. 3. By the time, the communication dated 26.3.2006 was forwarded to the petitioners intimating them that the result of the analysis conducted by the Government Analyst, the expiry date of the drug was fast approaching. The communication of the report of the Government Analyst was admittedly made to the petitioners vide a letter dated 26.3.2006. Therefore, by the time the report of the Government Analyst was received by the petitioners there was hardly any time left for reanalysis of the drug before its expiry date. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector, AIR 2008 SC 1939 dealing with the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, held that a delay in intimating the accused about the report of the Government Analyst, tant-amounted 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. 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 retesting 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." 11. The facts of the case at hand are almost similar. Herein also, the report of the Government Analyst was communicated to the petitioners just before the expiry date was approaching. The complaint was filed on 3.1.2008 i.e. much after the expiry date of the drug. The delay which has been occasioned in this case was at the stage of analysis of the drug by the State Government Analyst which took almost 22 months for giving the analysis report of the seized drug and this delay can be held to be fatal to the prosecution so far as the manufacturer is concerned. Thus, it is obvious that the delay which has been occasioned by the prosecution in communicating the result of the Government Analyst to the petitioners resulted into the petitioners being deprived of their 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. 12. Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. 12. Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of the complaint no. 3/2008 so far as the petitioners are concerned, are illegal and amount to abuse of process of court and thus are hereby quashed. 13. Stay petition also stands disposed of. 14. Record be sent back forthwith. *******