Judgment : Asim Kumar Mondal, J. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of proceedings in G.R. case No. 2124 of 2006 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta arising out of Bowbazar Police Station/D.D. Case No.344/2006 dated 27.09.2006 under Sections 120B/406/420/467/468/469/471/270 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and all orders passed therein. The fact of the Bowbazar Police Station/D.D./Case No. 344 dated 27.09.2006 is that Monozyme India Limited which is a company that supplies drugs and cosmetics to various medical establishments in India, supplied medical diagnostics kits to eight regional Blood Transfusion Centres. It was alleged that the kits did not contain any mention of expiry dates on the individual pouches. On receipt of the complaint, a preliminary enquiry was made on September 19, 2006 and September 20, 2006 at IBTML and NRS Medical College Blood Bank when it was detected that the kits supplied by the said company had manufacture date, expiry date, lot number printed on the outer packets but the same were missing on the inner pouches. Hence there was violation of relevant provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Random tests were made to check the efficacy of the kits and it was found that the kits suffer from lack of sensitivity thus purporting to be not of standard quality. Thus, the company, its Directors, Managing Directors and others were accused of commission of the alleged crime. That after conclusion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted in 2006 followed by a supplementary charge sheet in 2008. In the said charge sheets the case made out is that the accused persons being the Managing Director, Directors of the Company and others hatched up a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof sometimes in December, 2004 onwards managed to obtain orders for supply of Medical Diagnostic Kits. Challenging the order passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the prosecution, the present revisional application has been filed, on the grounds that the alleged criminal conspiracy was hatched and orders were obtained in December, 2004 that is about one year four months prior to the petitioners becoming an Additional Director of the accused company. Secondly that period alleged in the charge sheets as the time of commission of offence namely the appointment of petitioner as Additional Director which was as late as in April, 2006 and hence makes it patently absurd, improbable for the petitioner to be a part of any alleged conspiracy to commit and/or participate in the alleged crimes. And thirdly it has not been alleged in the charge sheet/supplementary charge sheet and there is absolutely nothing on record to establish in any manner whatsoever that even during his brief period of about five months as Additional Director of the Company, the petitioner was in any way in-charge of and/or was responsible to the accused company for running its day to day business including supplying the said kits to the government institutions whatsoever. Neither the charge sheet nor the supplementary charge sheet contained any specific allegations against the petitioner. Mr. Debasish Roy with Mrs. Rituparna De and Miss Suchitra Chatterjee appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Roy learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits and argued on April 6, 2006 the petitioner became only an additional director in the Board of Directors of Monozyme India Limited, and resigned from the same post on August 30, 2006. It would be evident from the statement of the witnesses that the petitioner during his tenure was without any functional responsibility, did not hold any share of the company, nor did he play any role whatsoever in the running of the day to day affairs of the company and was never responsible to the company of that score. The date of appointment of the petitioner in the company as director is not disputed. The alleged conspiracy admittedly took place long before the date of joining of petitioner in the company as additional director. Enquiry in the charge sheet or supplementary charge sheet submitted by the prosecution, the petitioner has not been described as a person who was in-charge and responsible for the conduct of day to day affairs of the company. The alleged conspiracy admittedly took place long before the date of joining of petitioner in the company as additional director. Enquiry in the charge sheet or supplementary charge sheet submitted by the prosecution, the petitioner has not been described as a person who was in-charge and responsible for the conduct of day to day affairs of the company. Learned Counsel further submits and argues that the name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation since the petitioner was a director of the company at the time of submitting charge sheet and there is nothing in the individuals of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show that the petitioner directed the officials of the company to participate in tenders since or he was informed about the complaints being received from various blood banks in which the Company did not take any steps. Mr. Roy further submits that it is settled proposition of law that in respect of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution is to show a prima facie case specifically participation of a particular accused person in the alleged offence. Merely because a person holds a particular post in a corporate body would not be sufficient to implicate him in an alleged crime under the Indian Penal Code. In respect of offences under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It must be alleged that the accused was in-charge of and responsible to the company for running of its day to day affairs. Mr. Roy relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts of different states in support of his argument. I. M.A.A. Annamalai – versus – State of Karnataka & Anr. Reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 950 (relevant para – 37[e]). II. National small Industries Corp. Ltd. – versus – Harmeet Singh Pental & Anr. Reported in JT 2010 (20 SC 161 (relevant pages – 10, 11, 25) III. K.K. Ahuja – versus – V.K. Voora & Anr. Reported in JT 2009 (8) SC 691 (relevant para – 20) IV. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – versus – Neeta Bhalla & Anr. Reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89 . (relevant paras – 8, 10, 19) V. Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr. – versus – State of Gujarat & Ors. Reported in (2004) 7 SCC 15 (relevant paras – 6, 7) VI. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – versus – Neeta Bhalla & Anr. Reported in (2005) 8 SCC 89 . (relevant paras – 8, 10, 19) V. Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr. – versus – State of Gujarat & Ors. Reported in (2004) 7 SCC 15 (relevant paras – 6, 7) VI. State of Karnataka – versus – Pratap Chand & Ors. Reported in (1981) 2 SCC 335 . (relevant para – 7) VII. State of NCT Delhi Through Prosecuting Officer, Insecticides, Government of NCT, Delhi – versus – Rajib Khurana, reported in JT 2010 (7) SC 546 (relevant paras 18,20,21) VIII. Central Bank of India – versus – M/s. Asian global Ltd. & Ors, reported in JT 2010 (7) SC 88 (relevant para – 15). Mr. Roy further submits that merely because a person holds particular post in a corporate body would not be sufficient to implicate him in an alleged crime under the Indian Penal Code. In the present case prosecution has not been able to make out a prima facie case or any material on record to connect the petitioner, with the alleged crime under the Indian Penal Code or there is any requisite averment present in the impugned charge sheet or the supplementary charge sheet to show that the petitioner is concerned to attract the principles of vicarious liability against him. Mr. Roy draws my attention to the statements of one Samar Nath Saha, Avijit sarkar, Tirthankar Mitra, Veeram Venu gopal Reddy and Asoke sen recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is the submission that the above referred witnesses are all coconspirators of the alleged offence. The statement of co-accused though has some value during the course of investigation but cannot be use for any purpose whatsoever after submission of charge sheet barring except if, such accused has not been tendered pardon. He referred the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard : - I. M.A.A. Annamalai – versus – State of Karnataka & Anr. Reported in 2010 (3) SCC (Cri) 950 (relevant paras 12, 17, 41) II. Saroj Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Reported in 2007 (1) C.Cr.LR Calcutta 793 (relevant para – 11) III. Anita Malhotra – versus – Apparel Export Promotion Counsel & Anr. Reported in 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 496 (relevant paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23). Mr. Saroj Kumar Jhunjhunwala Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Reported in 2007 (1) C.Cr.LR Calcutta 793 (relevant para – 11) III. Anita Malhotra – versus – Apparel Export Promotion Counsel & Anr. Reported in 2012 (1) SCC (Cri) 496 (relevant paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23). Mr. Roy criticise the evidences already recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and commented that they have deposed in a parrot like manner wherein every word, punctuation and serial number is same. Finally Mr. Roy concluded his argument that cognizance of an alleged offence cannot be taken merely on the basis of suspension so he prays for necessary direction to quash the entire proceeding including orders passed in connection with the said case. Mr. Monjit Singh, Learned P.P. High Court and Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta appears for the State. Mr. Singh vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the proceeding. Mr. Singh draws my attention on the deposition of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and the photocopy of the same which are annexed in the case record. It is his submission that the directors including the present petitioner were involved in the day to day business of the company. Mr. Singh submits that as it appears from the evidences of witnesses who are the employees of the said Company that the business was in fact, the family business of Sarda Group. He draws my attention at the evidences of one Samar Nath Saha and submits that from his evidence it will be evident that after purchasing major share of the company by Govind Prasad Sarda in the name of his elder son Aditya Sarda who became Managing Director and Ghanshyam Sarda became the director of the company. Sri V.V. Reddy, Sri Anand Kumar Maloo, Dr. Aloke Sen Sri Surendra Mohan Batra were also other directors of the company. They used to look after the day to day work of the company under direct supervision of Govind Prasad Sarda. Mr. Singh submits that the present petitioner was directly involved in the tender matters and it was very much within his knowledge. There is evidences on record to show that on receipt of complaint the employees / officers of the company visited different distributors places, checked the products and the complaint made by the distributors were found correct. Mr. Singh submits that the present petitioner was directly involved in the tender matters and it was very much within his knowledge. There is evidences on record to show that on receipt of complaint the employees / officers of the company visited different distributors places, checked the products and the complaint made by the distributors were found correct. Thereafter the matter was intimated to Mr. Anand Kumar Maloo, Director of the company in writing with a request to return back the products but in spite of several reminders Mr. Maloo instructed to settle the matter at any cost. It is also evident on examination of witnesses on record in the month of April / May, 2006 N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital and Institute of Blood Transfusion Medicine and Immuno Hematology made complaint verbally and the head office and same was intimated to Sri. Govind Prasad Sarda, Sri Ghanshyam Sarda, Sri Aditya Sarda and also to the head office over telephone. So, according to Mr. Singh there is sufficient materials to proceed with the case. Statement of Samar Nath Saha is sufficient enough. The evidence of Abhijit Sarkar has corroborates that he and other entrusted officials of the company used to attain tenders called by the Government on behalf of the company after observing all legal formalities as per directions of Sri Govind Prasad Sarda and Ghanshyam Sarda. There is also evidence to show that Ghanshyam Sarda the present petitioner had the knowledge and control over the business of the company like as the tenders etc. Mr. Singh submits that there are corroboration by the witnesses examined in course of investigation as to the allegation made against the present petitioner. Witnesses have categorically stated that the officials used to work as per the direction of Sri Govind Prasad Sarda, Aditya Sarda and Ghanshyam Sarda. It also appears in the evidences that in the month of December, 2004 and December, 2005 under the instruction of Sri Jagadish Sarda, Sri Ghanshyam Sarda and Sri Govind Prasad Sarda the officials of the company attended the tenders called by West Bengal Aids Prevention and Control Society of Salt Lake, Swasthya Bhaban and obtained the same for supplying kits on behalf of the company. On receipt of the complaint from N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital and other institutions the same was intimated to the head office in writing and it was also brought to the notice of Sri Govind Prasad Sarda, Aditya Sarda and Ghanshyam Sarda but the company did not take any action. It appears from the evidence of one Venugopal Reddy who was Manager that he had to do all the day to day affairs of the said company under the direct supervision of Govind Sarda, ghanshyam Sarda and Jagadish Sarda and Anand Maloo. He had no right to do anything without their consent. Mr. Singh submits that it is clear from the evidences already collected by the investigating officer that the petitioner was always an integrated part of the decision taking of the company. Mr. Singh also raised the question as to whether the petitioner claimed quasi judicial of the proceeding mainly on the alibi of remaining as Additional Director for 100 days only as because there are sufficient materials to show that it was their family business and he was all along involved in day to day affairs of the business as well as he had the knowledge of the complaint and he did not take any steps in spite of having knowledge to prevent the provision of the complainant. Therefore, according to the Mr. Singh the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings against the present petitioner. In Rajiv Thapar – Versus – Madanlal Kapoor, Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4883 of 2008, The Hon’ble Supreme court in paragraph 23 of its judgment as delineated steps to determine the veracity of the prayer for quash in the following words: I) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable, i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? II) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. III) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complaint; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? IV) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in a abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power, vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial )as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. The High court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code, who make a just and rightful choice. The stage for consideration of the prayer for quashing is not the stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise levelled by the prosecution against the accused / petitioner likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution / complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution / complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. To the converse is, however not true because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defence by producing evidences in accordance with law. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his or their defence is based on sound reasonable and indubitable facts. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his or their defence is based on sound reasonable and indubitable facts. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar – Versus – Madanlal Kapoor Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. Criminal No. 4883 of 2008 and also in view of the discussion made as above with reference to the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties as well as the materials placed before me I am of the view that the case as made out by the petitioner Ghanshyam Sarda is not al all convincing for considering his prayer of quashing the charge against him. In fact, the case is at a very initial stage and learned Trial Court has passed the order impugned on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the prosecution. There are sufficient materials showing involvements of the present petitioner in the alleged crime as a key person in management of the company. Mare defence of the petitioner that he was Additional Director only for 100 days and the alleged commission of offence occurred long back cannot justify his prayer for quashing the proceedings against him. The accused /petitioner would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defence in accordance with law. Thus, in my opinion the revisional application has got no merit for considering the prayer of quashing which would result in giving finality to the acquisition levelled by the prosecution to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. In the result the revisional application stands dismissed without costs. Let the case record, if brought in, be sent down immediately to the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law and procedure. I make it clear that the observations and findings made in the present judgment is absolutely for the limited purpose of disposing of the revisional application and it will not affect in the trial. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis. Later: Ms. I make it clear that the observations and findings made in the present judgment is absolutely for the limited purpose of disposing of the revisional application and it will not affect in the trial. Urgent Photostat Certified Copy of this order if applied for be given to the parties on priority basis. Later: Ms. Rituparna De, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner after delivering the judgment verbally prays for stay of operation of order for six weeks. The same is considered and rejected.