JUDGMENT : P.S.RANA, J. 1. Present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing summoning order dated 10.6.2013 and to quash criminal complaint No. 90/3 of 2013 filed under section 18 (a) (i) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and rules framed thereunder pending before learned chief Judicial Magistrate Sirmour District at Nahan H.P. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 2. Complainant Drug inspector head quarter at Nahan received complaint by way of telephone on dated 29.5.2010 relating to sale of Rabcer injection batch No. ERZ-06 and Rabcer injection batch No. ERZ-15 purchased from co-accused No.1 namely Anil Gupta proprietor of M/s Anil Medicos new market District Sirmour HP. Drug inspector inspected the stock of Rabcer injection kept for sale in premises. Sample of batch No. ERZ-06 and sample of batch No. ERZ-15 were obtained and sent for analysis by government analyst. Government analyst HP Kandaghat submitted report placed on record relating to batch No.ERZ-06 that out of five Rabcer injection vials one Rabcer vial injection does not comply with description and content of Sterile Rabeprazole Sodium. As per report the sample referred was not of standard quality as defined under Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and rules framed thereunder because Sterile Rabeprazole Sodium was found 19.3 mg and standard requirement was 20 mg. Similarly Government analyst Kandaghat HP submitted chemical analyst report relating to batch No ERZ-15. As per report sample referred was not of standard quality as defined under Drugs & Cosmetic Act 1940 and the rules framed thereunder. As per report out of five Rabcer injection vials, one vial of Rabcer injection does not comply the description and content of Rabeprazole Sodium. As per report Rabeprazole Sodium was found 19.58 mg against requirement of 20 mg. Co-accused No.1 proprietor of M/s Anil Medicos new market Nahan District Sirmour HP produced invoice before Drug inspector and informed that he has purchased batch of Rabcer injection from M/s Astron Life sciences Ludhiana Punjab. Thereafter Drug inspector issued notice to co-accused No.2 Sh Krishan Garg proprietor of M/s Astron Life Science Ludhiana Punjab. Co-accused No.1 proprietor of M/s Anil Medicos new market Nahan District Sirmour HP produced invoice before Drug inspector and informed that he has purchased batch of Rabcer injection from M/s Astron Life sciences Ludhiana Punjab. Thereafter Drug inspector issued notice to co-accused No.2 Sh Krishan Garg proprietor of M/s Astron Life Science Ludhiana Punjab. Thereafter proprietor M/s Astron Life Science Ludhiana Punjab produced invoice bill and submitted that he has purchased Rabcer injection from M/s Vision Medilink Ahmedabad and thereafter Drug inspector issued notice to Subhash S. Lohia proprietor of M/s Vision Medilink and he also produced invoice bill and submitted that he has purchased batch of Rabcer injection from M/s Embark Life Science private limited. Thereafter Drug inspector issued notice to M/s Embark Life Science private limited through Managing director and Managing director of M/s Embark Life Science has submitted that co-accused Sunil Arora is responsible for day today affairs and conduct of business of M/s Embark Life Science private limited for purposes of section 34 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940. 3. Feeling aggrieved against summoning order co accused Nos. 4 and 5 filed present petition. 4. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners and also perused entire records carefully. 5. Following points arise for determination in present petition. (1) Whether petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of civil procedure 1973 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of petition?. (2) Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that report of Drug analyst is without application of mind and is based with malafide intention and is contravention of sections 16,20,21,22,23,25 and rules 45,46,49,57, 124 and 124-A of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue whether report of Drug analyst is malafide and without application of mind and is contravention of sections and rules of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 is complicated issues of facts. Complicated issues of facts will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. Issue whether report of Drug analyst is malafide and without application of mind and is contravention of sections and rules of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 is complicated issues of facts. Complicated issues of facts will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings at this stage of case without giving any opportunity to parties to prove their case at this stage of case. Petitioners would be at liberty to summon and examine expert during trial of case as require under section 293 (2) Code of criminal procedure 1973. See 2002 criminal Law Journal 2512 (DB) State of Kerala vs. Arun Valenchary. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that State Drug Controller has given sanction to prosecute petitioners without application of mind and without giving any reason when drug batch No. ERZ-06 was already expired at the time of prosecution sanction and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue whether State Drug Controller has given sanction without application of mind is also complicated issues of facts. Judicial findings relating to complicated issues of facts will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. At this stage of case it is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings relating to complicated issues of facts unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. Petitioners would be at liberty to cross examine State Drug Controller during trial of case. Even in the present case it is prima facie proved on record that expiry date of batch No. ERZ-15 was 8/2011 and prosecution sanction was given on 14.7.2011 prior to expiry date. Expiry date of ERZ-06 was 01/2011 and offence was committed on 29.5.2010 before expiry date. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that State Drug Controller did not give sanction to prosecute Mr. Sunil Arora co-accused No.4 personally and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Expiry date of ERZ-06 was 01/2011 and offence was committed on 29.5.2010 before expiry date. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that State Drug Controller did not give sanction to prosecute Mr. Sunil Arora co-accused No.4 personally and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. As per sub section 34 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 when an offence was committed by company then every person who at the time of offence were in charge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company would be deemed to be guilty of offence and would be liable to be proceeded and punished accordingly. Sh Sunil Arora has given affidavit Annexure P45/3 placed on record that he was Director of M/s Embark life science private limited and he was responsible for day today affairs and conduct of business of M/s Embark life science private limited for purposes of section 34 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940. In view of statutory provision mentioned under section 34 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and in view of affidavit placed on record filed by Sh Sunil Arora co-accused No.4 it is not expedient in the ends of justice to quash proceedings against co-accused Sunil Arora at this stage of case because State Drug Controller has given sanction to prosecute M/s Embark life science private limited on dated 14.7.2011 and Sh Sunil Arora has given affidavit annexure 45/3 placed on record that he was responsible for day today affairs and conduct of business of M/s Embark life science private limited. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that mandate of section 23 (4) (1) and mandate of rule 57 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 relating to dispatch is violated in the present case and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue relating to violation of section 23 (4) (1) and rule 57 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 is issue of complicated facts. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to the parties to prove their case by way of adducing oral and documentaries evidence. 10. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to the parties to prove their case by way of adducing oral and documentaries evidence. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that as per guidelines given by CDSCO no prosecution could have been filed when Drug found at 70% purity on test and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. The effect of guideline given by CDSCO will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give any judicial finding at this stage of case being complicated issues of facts. 11. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that petitioners have lost their right which was conferred on them in view of section 25 (4) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 for retesting and on this ground petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Judicial findings relating to section 25 (4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 will be given by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings upon section 25 (4) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 at this stage of case being complicated issues of facts. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that Drug inspector had not conducted any inquiry to ascertain whether co-petitioner No.2 was in charge of the company and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. In view of affidavit Annexure P45/3 placed on record whereby Sh Sunil Arora has himself admitted that he was responsible for day today affairs and conduct of the business of M/s Embark Life Science Private Limited. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that delay in filing complaint has not been explained by Drug inspector because prosecution sanction was granted on 14.7.2011 and complaint was filed on 23.5.2013 and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that delay in filing complaint has not been explained by Drug inspector because prosecution sanction was granted on 14.7.2011 and complaint was filed on 23.5.2013 and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue of delay is complicated issue of law and facts. Complicated issues of law and facts will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings relating to delay in filing complaint at this stage of case unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that prosecution is motivated with malafide intention and to settle personal ego and is abuse of process of law and on this ground petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Issue whether prosecution filed with malafide motive or to settle personal egos is a complicated issue of facts and the same will be decided by learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to give judicial findings unless opportunity is granted to both parties to lead evidence in support of their case at this stage of case. 15. After perusal of complaint and after perusal of entire documents annexed with complaint i.e. (1) Copy of notification HP government notification No. health-AB (1)2/2001 dated 28.03.2012 annexure P-1. (2) Copy of notification health-B (2)5/95 dated 28.05.2008 annexure-P2. (3) Form 17 dated 29.05.2010 annexure P-3 (4) Copy of invoice No-687 dated 29.05.2010 annexure P-4. (5) Form 15 dated 29.05.2010 annexure P-5. (6) Form 18 No. drugs/2010/77 dated 31.05.2010 annexure P-6 (7) Form 18 No. drugs/2010/77 dated 31.05.2010 annexure P-7. (8) Receipt of government analyst dated 01.06.2010 annexure- P8. (9) Copy of notification No health-A-B (1)2/2001-loose-II dated 09.06.2010 annexure P-9. (10) Letter dated 21.06.2010 (attached as annexure P-10. (11) Form 15 dated 21.06.2010 annexure P-11. (12) Form 13 vide No. CTL-drugs/2010-5901 dated 30.08.2010 annexure-P-12. (13) Form 13 vide no. CTL drugs/2010-5904 dated 30.08.2010 annexure P-13. (14) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/94 dated 16.09.2010 annexure P-14. (9) Copy of notification No health-A-B (1)2/2001-loose-II dated 09.06.2010 annexure P-9. (10) Letter dated 21.06.2010 (attached as annexure P-10. (11) Form 15 dated 21.06.2010 annexure P-11. (12) Form 13 vide No. CTL-drugs/2010-5901 dated 30.08.2010 annexure-P-12. (13) Form 13 vide no. CTL drugs/2010-5904 dated 30.08.2010 annexure P-13. (14) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/94 dated 16.09.2010 annexure P-14. (15) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/95 dated 16.09.2010 annexure P-15. (16)Copy of form 16 dated 16.09.2010 annexure P-16. (17) Copy of custody orders application dated 16.09.2010 annexure P-17. (18) Copy of custody orders annexure P-18. (19) Reply letter of accused No.1 dated 17.9.2010 annexure P-19. (20) Copy of invoice no. R 590 dated 23.02.2010 annexure P-20. (21) Copy of invoice no. R 593 dated 25.02.2010 annexure P-21. (22) Copy of invoice no. R 667 dated 10.05.2010 annexure P-22. (23) Copy of invoice no. R 668 dated 11.05.2010 annexure P-23. (24) Copy of invoice No R 672 dated 18.05.2010 annexure P-24. (25) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/99 dated 30.09.2010 annexure P-25. (26) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/100 dated 30.09.2010 annexureP-26 (27) Speed post receipt No. EE 707294060 dated 30.09.2010 annexure P-27. (28) Copy of invoice no. 030-000431 dated 04.05.2010 annexure P-28. (29) Copy of invoice No. 030-000358 dated 28.04.2010 annexure P-29. (30) Copy of invoice no. 030-004297 dated 16.02.2010 annexure P-30. (31) Copy of wholesale license on form 20B annexure P-31. (32) Copy of wholesale license on form 21B annexure P-32. (33) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/109 dated 28.10.2010 annexure P-33. (34) Copy of letter No.NHN/drug/10/110 dated 28.10.2010 annexure P-34. (35) Speed post receipt No. EE 707425295 dated 30.10.2010 annexure P-35. (36) Copy of letter dated 23.11.2010 alongwith other document annexure P-36/1 to 36/12. (37) Copy of letter dated 23.11.2010 along with other documents annexure P-37/1 to P-37/11. (38) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/134 dated 08.12.2010 annexure P-38. (39) Copy of letter No. NHN/drugs/10/135 dated 08.12.2010 annexure P-39. (40) Speed post receipt No. EE734800755 dated 10.12.2010 annexure P-40 (41) Reply dated 27.12.2010 of manufacturing company pertaining to batch No. ERZ-06 along with documents supplied annexure P41/1 to P41/22. (42) Reply dated 27.12.2010 of manufacturing company pertaining to batch No. ERZ-15 along with documents supplied annexures P-42/1 to P-42/23. (43) Copy of letter No.HFW-NHN/drugs/10/223 dated 03.02.2011 annexure P-43. (44) Permission to launch prosecution dated 14.07.2011 annexure P-44. (42) Reply dated 27.12.2010 of manufacturing company pertaining to batch No. ERZ-15 along with documents supplied annexures P-42/1 to P-42/23. (43) Copy of letter No.HFW-NHN/drugs/10/223 dated 03.02.2011 annexure P-43. (44) Permission to launch prosecution dated 14.07.2011 annexure P-44. (45) Letter No. HFW-H (drugs) 148/07 dated 14.02.2013 along with copies of documents supplied by drugs controller Uttarakhand annexures P-45/1 to P-45/13, it is held that there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against petitioners in present case. 16. It is well settled law that at the stage of issue of process Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in the complaint. At the summoning stage Magistrate should not enter into detailed discussions of merits or demerits of the case. It is well settled law that evaluation of truth or falsity of complaint would be possible only after evidence is recorded. It is well settled law that disputed and controversial facts should not be made basis for quashing criminal proceedings. It is well settled law that in complicated facts the High court power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly with circumspection. See 1995 (2) SCC 449 title State of T.N. Vs. Thirukkural Perumal. See 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 title State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others. See 2012 (10) SCC 155 title State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surendra Kori. See JT 2015 (3) SC 185 title Tarnamani Parakh Vs. State of M.P. and others. See AIR 2016 SC 122 title Madam Razak Vs. State of Bihar and others. See 2004 (1) SCC 691 title State of M.P. Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others. See AIR 2005 SC 359 State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi. See 2009 (4) SCC 443 title Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan. See AIR 2014 SC 2567 title Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P. See AIR 1976 SC 1947 title Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others. See AIR 1963 SC 1430 title Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose and another. 17. Rulings cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners i.e. 2007 (2) ACR 1346 (SC) title N.K.Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and others, 2005 (3) ACR 3082 title S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2009 (2) ACR 1650 (SC) title Ramrajsingh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 2795 title Aneeta Hada Vs. 17. Rulings cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners i.e. 2007 (2) ACR 1346 (SC) title N.K.Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and others, 2005 (3) ACR 3082 title S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2009 (2) ACR 1650 (SC) title Ramrajsingh Vs. State of M.P., AIR 2012 SC 2795 title Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. are relating to Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 and are not relating to Drugs & Cosmetic Act 1940. Hence rulings cited supra are not applicable in Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 case. 18. Ruling cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners i.e. 2013 (5) ALLMR 551 title Shashank Yankatesh Manohar Vs. Union of India is relating to Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (FEMA) and is not relating to Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940. Hence ruling cited supra is not applicable in Drugs& Cosmetics Act 1940 case. 19. Rulings cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners i.e. ILR (1999) MP 704 title Vishal Pharmaceuticals and another Vs. State of M.P, ILR 1991 Karnataka 2368 title State of Karnataka Vs. C.B.Sheelavanth, 2005 (2) GLR 1518 Vallabhbhai Popatbhal Vs. State of Gujarat, 2012 Cri.L.J 4115 title State by Inspector of Drugs Chidambaram Vs. J.Mohamed Rafic, 2008 (7) SCC 196 title Medicamen Biotech Ltd. and another Vs. Rubina Bose Drug inspetor, 2011 (2) ACR 1592 (SC) title Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 (2) ALD (Cr.) 908 title State of Haryana Vs. Unique Farmaid P.Ltd. ors. AIR 1998 SC 2327 title State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal and others, 2003 Bom CR (Cri.) 1522 title Umesh Sharma Vs. S.G.Bhakta Drugs Inspector and others are relating to final judgments after completion of entire trial. Rulings are not relating to summoning order. Ruling would be appreciated at the time of announcement of final judgment by learned Trial Court after completion of entire trial. 20. Rulings cited by learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners i.e. 2003 AllMR (Cri) 758 title Venkaiah Chowdary Nannapaneni and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1997 (99) BOMLR 438 title Ramanbhai B.Patel and others Vs. S.R.Sharma and another, 1985 Cri. L.J 1572 title D.K.Javer and others Vs. State, 2009 (111) BOMLR 973 title United Phosphorus Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009 (1) Shim. L.C 284 title Indofil Chemical Company Vs. State of H.P., 2005 (14) criminal 87 title Shashank Bhargava Vs. S.R.Sharma and another, 1985 Cri. L.J 1572 title D.K.Javer and others Vs. State, 2009 (111) BOMLR 973 title United Phosphorus Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2009 (1) Shim. L.C 284 title Indofil Chemical Company Vs. State of H.P., 2005 (14) criminal 87 title Shashank Bhargava Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1998 Cri. L.J 3920 title Rajendra Kumar Mohanty Vs. P.K.Das would be considered by learned Trial Court at the stage of notice of accusation or at the stage of framing charge in accordance with law when cognizance of offence would be taken. Present case is at the stage of enquiry before learned Trial Court. It is well settled law that mere filing of complaint is not taking cognizance of offence. Taking cognizance of offence is different from filing complaint. Court take cognizance of offence when it applies its mind to give notice of accusation or notice of charge to accused persons. It is sine qua non for trial and it cannot be equated with issuance of process. See AIR 1961 SC 986 title Gopal Dass Vs. State of Assam. See AIR 2000 SC 2946 Narsing Dass Tapadia Vs. Goverdhan Dass. See AIR 2008 SC 1213 title S.K.Sinha Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. M/s Videocon International Ltd. It is not expedient in the ends of justice to consider rulings at the stage of enquiry of criminal case. It is well settled law that at the stage of summoning accused persons under section 204 of code of criminal procedure 1973 Judicial Magistrate should simply satisfy himself whether there are sufficient grounds for proceedings against accused persons or not. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order). 21. In view of findings upon point No.1 petition is dismissed. Observation made hereinabove is strictly for the purpose of deciding present petition and shall not effect merits of the case in any manner. File of learned Trial Court along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 30.9.2016. Petition filed under Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure 1973 is disposed of. All pending application (s) if any are also disposed of.