Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1478 (JHR)

Jyoti Prakash Narayan Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2019-08-26

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of complaint case no.3521 of 2015, including the order taking cognizance which has been taken under Section 18 (a)(i), (vi), 18B, 27(d), 28A Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 against these petitioners, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint was registered on the basis of the allegation that the Galcopin Linctus Batch No.GPS4002B, which was seized from the Employees State Insurance Hospital, Maithan, Dhanbad, was found to be of sub standard quality as per the report of the State Drugs Testing Laboratory Jharkhand, Namkum, Ranchi. It is submitted that in terms of the procedure and provision of the Act, the sample was sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory at Kolkata. That it would be evident from the report of Central Drugs Laboratory, that the sample was found to be confirming to the prescribed standard. It is submitted that this fact has been admitted by the State in para 16 of their counter affidavit. 3. Heard. Taking into account the report of the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata and the admission in para 16 of counter-affidavit, it is evident that the seized drug was found to be of standard quality. It is pertinent to refer the provision of Section 25 (4) of the Act, which reads as under; 1.......... 2.......... 3.......... 4. Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst's report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused, cause the sample of the drug [or cosmetic] produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory the result, thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. Plain reading of provision of Clause (4) of Section 25, reveals that the report of Central Drug Laboratory, will be conclusive evidence of the facts narrated in the complaint. Plain reading of provision of Clause (4) of Section 25, reveals that the report of Central Drug Laboratory, will be conclusive evidence of the facts narrated in the complaint. It is well-settled that the jurisdiction Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked on consideration of documents which are of unimpeachable character. In the attending facts and circumstances, in view of the report of Central Drug, Laboratory, which is of unimpeachable character, the continuance of the criminal proceedings will tantamount to an abuse of process of court. 4. In view of the report it is evident the ingredients for constituting aforesaid offence is not made out, accordingly the entire criminal proceeding arising out of complaint case no.3521 of 2015, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is, hereby, quashed. 5. This criminal miscellaneous petition is, hereby, allowed.