ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.146 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet. 2. The allegations of the complaint are that A-1 is the company and A-2 to A-4 are the Directors of A-1 company. The second respondent is the Drug Inspector, who filed complaint against the petitioners. On 26.04.2008 the Drug Inspector visited M/s.Venkata Laxmi Medical and General Stores at Suraypet and has lifted of Peptilcer (Rx.Pantoprazole Tablet) B.No.BA3905 manufactured on 08/2007, Expiry date 07/2009 in quantity 25x10 which is manufactured by M/s.Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Haridwar (A-1) for the purpose of analysis and towards the price of 25x10 tablets, he paid Rs.320/- and obtained cash memo and receipt. The second respondent divided sample of 25x10 tablets into four portions (one portion containing 10x10 and three portions containing 5x10 tablets. One portion of the sample (5x10) tablets was restored with M/s.Venkatalaxmi Medical and General Stores and another portion of the sample i.e. 10x10 of peptilcer was sent to the Government Analyst, the Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad by writing details in Form-18 for the purpose of analysis on 28.04.2008. 3. The Government analyst vide report, dated 09.09.2008, opined that “sample was not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and rules thereunder for the reason that sample does not meet the Disintegration test as per IP 96 specification for Enteric coated tablets”. On 19.09.2008 letter was served to M/s.Sri Venkata Laxmi Medical and General Stores, Suryapet requesting to disclose the particulars of person from whom drug was obtained and to furnish purchase invoice as well as particulars of sample drug. On the same day Sri Ch.Venkanna (LW.2) furnished certified copy of purchase invoice of M/s.Venkadara Associates Vijayawada(LW.3). The Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.3 and LW.3 confirmed the same by letter, dated 24.09.2008 and submitted a copy of purchase invoice from M/s.S.R.Enterprises, Vijayawada (LW.4). The Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.4 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug to LW.3 and furnish certified copies of purchase invoice and sales particulars. On 11.12.2008, LW.4 in their reply stated that they have purchased the subject drug from M/s.MKS Pharma Ltd., Faridabad (LW.5). The Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.4 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug to LW.3 and furnish certified copies of purchase invoice and sales particulars. On 11.12.2008, LW.4 in their reply stated that they have purchased the subject drug from M/s.MKS Pharma Ltd., Faridabad (LW.5). On 18.12.2008, the Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.5 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug. On 07.01.2009 Lw.5 in their reply stated that they had purchased the subject drug from M/s.Biochem Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Mumbai (LW.6). On 24.01.2009 a letter was addressed to LW.6 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug. On 07.03.2009 LW.6 confirmed the sale of subject drug to LW.5. On 23.03.2009 again letter was addressed to LW.6 with request to furnish purchase invoice. On 01.04.2009 LW.6 furnished purchase invoice, dated 24.09.2007, of A-1 firm M/s.Akum Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Haridwar. 4. The Drug Inspector addressed a letter on 27.04.2009 to A-1 firm to furnish registers and records of the said drug enclosing Analytical report. On 25.06.2009 a reminder letter was also issued. On 18.07.2009 the Drug Inspector received a letter dated 06.07.2009 from A-1 with certified copies of documents and records of the subject drug and informed that they intend to adduce the evidence in contravention of the said report under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”). 5. The Drug Inspector deposited the second sample of the subject drug under Section 23(4) of the Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet with a request to forward the said sample to Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta for ‘Disintegration test for Enteric coated tablets.’ 6. The Director, Central Drug Laboratory in his report, dated 03.08.2009, opined that the sample does not conform to schedule V of Drugs and Cosmetics Act with respect to the test for “Disintegration”. 7. The Drug Inspector filed complaint against the petitioners on 31.12.2011 as they manufactured the drug Peptilcer B.No.BA 3905 not of standard quality and sold the same in violation of Section 18(a) (i) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and the said complaint was registered as C.C.No.146 of 2013. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is not maintainable on two grounds. The first one is petitioner Nos.2 to 4/A-2 to A-4 are the Directors of A-1 company. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is not maintainable on two grounds. The first one is petitioner Nos.2 to 4/A-2 to A-4 are the Directors of A-1 company. The Drug Inspector in the complaint stated that A-2 to A-4 are the Directors of said company. Throughout the complaint, except stating that they are Directors of the company, there is no mention as to the role played by them and how they are responsible for day to day affairs of the said company. 9. The second ground is that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submitted that for violation of Section 18(a)(i) of the Act, as per Section 27(d) of the Act, the punishment prescribed is for a maximum term of two years, the limitation for taking cognizance of above offence is three years as per Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C. 10. Learned counsel submitted that as per the allegations of the complaint, the subject drug was lifted on 26.04.2008 and the same was sent to State Government Analyst and the report was received on 09.09.2008 and the complaint is filed on 31.11.2011 i.e. after more than three years from the date of detection of offence i.e. on 09.09.2008. As such, the complaint is barred by limitation and the trial Court is prohibited from taking cognizance of the offence. 11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the subject drug was not of standard quality and as the petitioners were manufacturers of the said drug and at their instance second sample was forwarded to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkatta for only Disintegration test for Enteric coated tablets and the said sample was again declared as not of standard quality with remarks that sample does not confirm to the test for Disintegration in the report, dated 03.08.2009. She further submitted that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation of three years as per Section 468(2) Cr.P.C., as the limitation commenced from 03.08.2009 from the date of Analyst report of second sample and the complaint was filed on 31.12.2011, which is within limitation. 12. Heard both the counsel and perused the material placed on record. 13. She further submitted that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation of three years as per Section 468(2) Cr.P.C., as the limitation commenced from 03.08.2009 from the date of Analyst report of second sample and the complaint was filed on 31.12.2011, which is within limitation. 12. Heard both the counsel and perused the material placed on record. 13. The questions, which arise for consideration in the instant case is that, whether the present complaint would fall under the category of Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C. and as a result, whether the trial Court was barred from taking cognizance of the same? 14. In order to delve into the issue at hand, it is pertinent to first understand the contours of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Section 468 has been reproduced as under: 468 Cr.P.C: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 15. Section 468 Cr.P.C. stipulates that after the lapse of period of limitation, a bar is instituted that prevents the Court from taking cognizance of an offence of the categories which are enumerated under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. This bar can only be relaxed under Section 473 Cr.P.C., according to which, any Court has the discretion to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. However, such cognizance needs to be accompanied with a reasonable explanation as to how the Court satisfied itself in extending the period of limitation. 16. Now as per Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. the period of limitation for any offence punishable with an imprisonment term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years, is three years. However, such cognizance needs to be accompanied with a reasonable explanation as to how the Court satisfied itself in extending the period of limitation. 16. Now as per Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. the period of limitation for any offence punishable with an imprisonment term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years, is three years. Therefore, if the complaint is filed after three years of the alleged offences as per Section 468(2) (c) Cr.P.C. taking place, then a Court will be barred from taking cognizance of the same and any Order that is rendered pursuant to this will be without jurisdiction. 17. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar, 1998 (5) SCC 82 , while dealing with Section 468 Cr.P.C. has observed as follows:- “ In the Cr.P.C, 1973, Chapter XXXVI has been added prescribing limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences with a view to expedite the process of detection and investigation of crimes and also to ensure observances of the principle of fairness in the trial of the offences by barring belated prosecution. Delay in prosecution of offences causes undue hardship as it keeps the sword handing on the heads of accused persons and it also results in the material evidence getting vanished. This chapter applies to all such offences for which punishment prescribed is less than three years. But it does not apply to offences for which punishment prescribed is more than three years and to economic offences under various Acts, which are excluded under Central Act 12 of 1974 or any State Acts. It contains seven Sections 467-473. Section 467 defines the expression 'period of limitation' used in the chapter. Section 468 creates bar to taking cognizance of offences after lapse of period of limitation. Sections 469 to 473 deal with various aspects of computation of limitation. Of the aforementioned provisions, we are concerned with Sections 468 and 469. Sub-section (1) of Section 468 ordains that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2), after the expiry of the 'period of limitation' prescribed thereunder. This, however, is subject to the other provisions of the Code. Of the aforementioned provisions, we are concerned with Sections 468 and 469. Sub-section (1) of Section 468 ordains that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2), after the expiry of the 'period of limitation' prescribed thereunder. This, however, is subject to the other provisions of the Code. Sub-section (2) postulates different period of limitation for offences with reference to the punishment provided for them; if the punishment provided for an offence in any Act is only fine, the period of limitation fixed is six months; if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, the period of limitation prescribed is one year and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, the period of limitation laid down is three years. And Sub-section (3) spells out the rule of limitation in cases of joinder of charges; if a person is tried for more offences than one, then the period of limitation will be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment; for example, if a person is tried for various offences and some of them are punishable with fine and some with imprisonment for a term less than a year and some for which the punishment is provided upto three years, then the period of limitation for all the offences, if they are tried together, will be three years.” 18. A perusal of the material on record indicates that the complaint under Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which stipulates punishment for manufacturing and sale etc., in contravention of chapter IV of the Act entails an imprisonment term, which shall not be less than one year and which may extend to two years. Therefore, this punishment fairly falls within the bracket of one to two years as has been envisaged under Section 468(2) (c) of the Cr.P.C. 19. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the Drug Inspector lifted sample of drug peptilcer (Rx) Pantaprozole manufactured by M/s.Akums Durgs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (A.1) firm in quantity 25x10 tablets and paid Rs.320/- towards price of lifted tablets and divided into four parts. A perusal of the complaint reveals that the Drug Inspector lifted sample of drug peptilcer (Rx) Pantaprozole manufactured by M/s.Akums Durgs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (A.1) firm in quantity 25x10 tablets and paid Rs.320/- towards price of lifted tablets and divided into four parts. One portion of the sample was sent to State Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad on 28.04.2008 and on 09.09.2008, the report was received by the Drug Inspector, wherein the subject drug declared as “Not of standard quality. However, the criminal complaint was filed on 31.12.2011. 20. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners on receipt of letter along with chemical analysis report in form-VIII expressed their intention to adduce evidence as per Section 25(3) of the Act and in pursuance of the same, the second sample was sent to Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta. The report was received on 03.08.2009 and the sample was declared as not of standard quality. Therefore, the date of offence has to be taken into consideration from 03.08.2009 and the limitation would commence from that day only and not from the first report received from the State Government Analyst on 09.09.2008. The said contention has no force. The limitation will start from the date of offence i.e. from the date of report which was has been sent by the Government Analyst and the sample was found to be not of standard quality vide report, dated 09.09.2008, which was received on 18.09.2008. So the law of limitation commences from the date of analyst report, dated 09.09.2008 and not from the date of second report, which was received on 03.08.2009 as contended by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 21. After considering the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the view that after taking into account the law of limitation, the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of detection of offence i.e. on 09.09.2008. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the sample was lifted on 26.04.2008. 21. After considering the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the view that after taking into account the law of limitation, the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of detection of offence i.e. on 09.09.2008. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the sample was lifted on 26.04.2008. The sample was sent to the State Government Analyst on 28.04.2008 and after examination of the sample, the State Government Analyst by his report, dated 09.09.2008, opined that the subject drug is not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for the reason that the sample does not meet the Disintegration test as per IP 96 specification for Enteric coated tablets” and the same was received on 18.09.2008. The criminal complaint was filed on 31.12.2011 i.e. after more than three years. The period of limitation had indeed expired, when the criminal complaint has been filed on 31.12.2011 and, therefore, cognizance of the same could not have been taken by the learned Magistrate. 22. Coming into the second ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Drug Inspector has not stated anything in the complaint as what was the role played by the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 in the company and how they are responsible for day to day affairs of the company. A perusal of the complaint also reveals that the Drug Inspector has not mentioned anything about the role played by A-2 to A-4 in the affairs of company. In National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010)3 Supreme Court Cases 330 in para No.26 held as under: In a subsequent decision in N.K. Wahi vs. Shekhar Singh & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 481 while following the precedents of SMS Pharmaceuticals's case (supra), Sabhita Ramamurthy's case (supra) and Saroj Kumar Poddar's case (supra), this Court reiterated that for launching a prosecution against the alleged Directors, there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "7. This provision clearly shows that so far as the companies are concerned if any offence is committed by it then every person who is a Director or employee of the company is not liable. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under: "7. This provision clearly shows that so far as the companies are concerned if any offence is committed by it then every person who is a Director or employee of the company is not liable. Only such person would be held liable if at the time when offence is committed he was in charge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company. Merely being a Director of the company in the absence of above factors will not make him liable. 8. To launch a prosecution, therefore, against the alleged Directors there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The description should be clear. It is true that precise words from the provisions of the Act need not be reproduced and the court can always come to a conclusion in facts of each case. But still, in the absence of any averment or specific evidence the net result would be that complaint would not be entertainable." 23. Keeping in view of the above decision, in the instant case also the Drug Inspector has not made any specific allegation against the Directors as to how they are in-charge or responsible for the affairs of the company as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the absence of any specific averments about the role of the Directors and how they are responsible in the conduct of business, the net result would be that complaint would not be entertainable. 24. The Drug Inspector has lifted the sample on 26.04.2008 and the State Government Analyst report is dated 09.09.2008 and therefore, terminus quo for limitation would start from 09.09.2008. The complaint which has been filed on 31.11.2011, therefore, clearly out of limitation period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The right which is accrued to the petitioners as a result of the expiry of limitation period is a valuable right that flows from the petitioners right to a speedy and fair trial as conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law and in the ends of justice, the same are liable to be quashed. 25. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No. 146 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.