Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 253 (HP)

Ban Labs Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-03-15

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J The instant petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners-accused for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.122/3 of 2013, filed by the respondent against them before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sirmour at Nahan, H.P. under Section 18 (a) (ii) read with Section 16 (b) and Section 17-E (f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 wherein the petitioners herein stand alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 27-A of the aforesaid Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends with vehemence qua the report of the Chemical Analyst recording an opinion therein of the sample sent to it for analysis being not upto the standard quality sprouting from the factum of it containing matter insoluble in alcohol beyond the prescribed limit, being infirm spurred by the factum of it not being in consonance with Annexure P-3, whereat the permissible percentum of the ingredients of the sample stand delineated, whereas the reports of the Chemical Analyst, comprised in Annexures R-3 to R-7 omit to with exactitude unravel with specificity the ingredients enunciated in Annexures P-3 to P-6 whose existence beyond the prescribed limit in the sample concerned would alone constitute an offence punishable under Section 27-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. However, the aforesaid submission stands repelled arising from the factum of the reports of the Chemical Analysts, comprised in Annexures P-7, P-9 & R-3 to R-7 on the sample as sent to them for analysis unraveling the factum of the matter insoluble in alcohol being much beyond the prescribed limit, hence even if there is no enunciation therein with specificity of the impermissible percentum of the ingredients spelt in Annexure P-3 in the sample sent to it for analysis, nonetheless, the reports of the Chemical Analysts emanating from the labs concerned existing in Annexures P-7, P-9 & R-3 to R-7, cannot stand being either repelled or ousted at this stage nor they can be construed to be devoid of any sanctity, especially when authors thereof are not available before this Court. Preeminently, it is open for the petitioners-accused to outstrip the veracity of the reports recorded by their authors by concerting to cross examine them on theirs stepping into the witness box. In sequel, prima-facie at this stage sanctity is to be imputed to the reports emanating from the chemical labs aforesaid. Preeminently, it is open for the petitioners-accused to outstrip the veracity of the reports recorded by their authors by concerting to cross examine them on theirs stepping into the witness box. In sequel, prima-facie at this stage sanctity is to be imputed to the reports emanating from the chemical labs aforesaid. Also prima-facie it is not open for the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petition be allowed by this Court. 3. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a misrecital/ mis-quoting of the penal provisions in the complaint lodged against the accused comprised in Annexure P-19. However, mis-reflection/mis-quoting aforesaid is curable in the face of supervening circumstances manifested in the reports of the chemical labs aforesaid. Obviously given the inference of any mis-reflection of the penal provisions in the complaint comprised in Annexure P-19 being curable, the effect of any mis-reflection of the penal provisions in Annexure P-19 cannot at all stand as a good ground for the learned counsel for the petitioners to oust at this stage the allegations constituted against the petitioners-accused comprised therein. Moreover, when it is open to the learned trial Court to in the face of the supervening circumstances modify, alter or amend the charge against the petitioners-accused for bringing it in consonance with the material before it, any resort thereto by it benumbs the efficacy or the tenacity of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused of mis-recital of penal provisions in Annexure P-19 stripping it of its legal efficacy on all scores. 4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.