ORDER : 1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners herein with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Complaint No.160/2012 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar and so also, the orders dated 06.11.2009 and 30.05.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in above Criminal Complaint case. 2. By order dated 06.11.2009, the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioners for sending the second sample of the drug for reanalysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. By order dated 30.05.2012, the trial court took cognizance for the offences under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Sections 16(1)(a), 18(a)(vi), 22(1)(cca) and 18-B punishable under Sections 27(d), 22(3) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act against the petitioners and the co-accused persons. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the petition are noted herein below. 4. The Drug Inspector, Sri Ganganagar collected sample of a drug named Omeprazole capsules from a firm named M/s. Unique Marketing, Sri Ganaganagar with the manufacturing date of the drug being September, 2008, expiry date being August, 2010 and the manufacturer being the petitioner No. 1. The drug sample was divided into 4 equal parts. One sealed sample was provided to the vendor firm. One part was forwarded to the Govt. Analyst, Jaipur for analysis from where, a report dated 04.06.2009 was received to the effect that the sample did not conform to the standards laid down in the Act and the Rules. The Drug Inspector gave intimation to the vendor regarding the report of the Drug Laboratory by letter dated 22.06.2009. However, the vendor did not offer any significant response to this intimation. The Drug Inspector thereafter forwarded copy of the report alongwith a sealed sample to the distributor firm named M/s.Phutela Distributors, Jaipur vide letter dated 24.06.2009 who replied that it had procured the drug in question from the firm M/s. Meri Odin Lifesciences vide bills dated 30.10.2008 and 28.11.2008. The Drug Inspector in turn forwarded a copy of the analysis report to the petitioner No. 1 firm vide letter dated 16.07.2009. A reply dated 10.08.2009 was forwarded by the petitioner No.1 firm to the Drug Inspector wherein, it was admitted that the drug in question has been manufactured by it. The Drug Inspector in turn forwarded a copy of the analysis report to the petitioner No. 1 firm vide letter dated 16.07.2009. A reply dated 10.08.2009 was forwarded by the petitioner No.1 firm to the Drug Inspector wherein, it was admitted that the drug in question has been manufactured by it. However, the report of the drug laboratory was disputed and a request was made intending to challenge the said report by having the second sample re-examined through the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. On receiving this intimation from the petitioner firm, the Drug Inspector submitted an Application No.797 dated 07.10.2009 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity) for passing appropriate orders. Whilst the said application was pending, the Drug Inspector claims to have received a letter dated 05.11.2009 from the manufacturing firm, retracting from its earlier prayer to have the second sample reexamined through the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. Accordingly, the trial court rejected the said application by order dated 06.11.2009. After concluding the enquiry, the Drug Inspector proceeded to present the complaint, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, who passed the order dated 30.05.2012 taking cognizance against the petitioners and other co-accused persons for the above offences. 5. The petitioners have now approached this Court through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned orders and the complaint on various grounds which were canvassed by learned counsel Shri Pankaj Gupta during the course of arguments and are enumerated hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference. (1) That the Drug Inspector failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 23(4)(iii) of the Act, inasmuch as, one part of the drug sample was not provided to the manufacturing firm. (2) That the application under Section 25(3) of the Act was filed by the Drug Inspector in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganagangar without presenting the complaint and thus, the same was not maintainable and the petitioners were well within their right to request the Drug Inspector not to proceed with the said application for the reason that the complaint had not been presented till then. (4) That the order dated 06.11.2009 was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and thus, the same is patently illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. (5) That the complaint came to be filed much after expiry of the shelf life life of the drug and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 6. In support of his contentions, Shri Gupta placed reliance on the following judgments :- Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2017 SC 2423 Northern Mineral Limited vs. Union of India & Anr. 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 763 M/s. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 496 7. On these grounds, Shri Gupta implored this Court to accept the miscellaneous petition and quash the proceedings of the complaint claiming that its continuance amounts to abuse of process of Court. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioners’ counsel. He urged that the petitioners initially conveyed to the Drug Inspector that they wanted to controvert the report of the State Drug Laboratory. However, later on, they forwarded a letter dated 28.10.2009 wherein, it was requested that the earlier letter should be treated as cancelled. Acting on the said communication of the petitioners, the Drug Inspector withdrew the application, which he had submitted in the Court on 06.11.2009 for sending the second sample to the Drug Inspector for re-analysis through Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. He thus urged that having retracted from the prayer to have preserved part of the sample re-examined through the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, the petitioners cannot now change their stance and claim that the complaint is vitiated on account of noncompliance of Sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor sought dismissal of the misc. petition. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record. 10. Suffice it to say that it is an undisputed position from a bare perusal of the complaint that the Drug Inspector did not forward one part of the sample to the manufacturing firm i.e. petitioner No.1 as required by Section 23(4)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. 10. Suffice it to say that it is an undisputed position from a bare perusal of the complaint that the Drug Inspector did not forward one part of the sample to the manufacturing firm i.e. petitioner No.1 as required by Section 23(4)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners had conveyed to the Drug Inspector well in time that they intended to challenge the report of the State Drugs Laboratory by having the preserved sample re-examined through the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. These proceedings took place in October/November 2009. The Drug Inspector initially filed the application dated 06.11.2009 in the Court and then withdrew the same on the basis of a communication purportedly received from the petitioners. However, by the time, the Inspector filed the application, no complaint had been submitted in the Court concerned. The letter dated 28.10.2009 forwarded from the side of the petitioners on the basis whereof, the application for analysis through Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata was withdrawn, does not convey in specific language, that the firm was not desirous of having the second sample re-examined through the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. In the letter dated 28.10.2009, the Drug Inspector was intimated that M/s.Meri Odin Life sciences was the manufacturer of the drug. Copies of the drug licenses, sale invoice and the recall of the drug were enclosed with the letter and the Inspector was intimated that the control sample was checked and was found to be ok and the test report was being enclosed. In this background, a request was made to treat the earlier letter dated 10.8.2009 cancelled. Thus, even in this letter, no specific averment was made that the petitioner was not desirous of leading evidence to controvert the report of the drug inspector. As per Section 25(4) of the Act, the accused as well as the Drug Inspector can request the Court to have the second sample examined through the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that once the Drug Inspector had filed the application for analysis of the preserved part of the sample through Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata at the instance of the accused, the same could not have been withdrawn even if the Drug Inspector felt that the manufacturing firm had retracted its earlier request to have the second sample re-examined through the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. This act of the Drug Inspector in getting the application withdrawn without intimating the vendor or the manufacturer firm, is fatal to the prosecution. Unquestionably, the shelf life of the drug was till August 2010; the complaint came to be filed on 30.5.2012 by which time, the shelf life of the drug had expired by a significant period of time. 11. In the case of Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Pvt.Ltd. (Supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that non-forwarding of one part of the sample to the manufacturing firm amounts to a fatal defect as being in violation of the mandate of Section 23(4) (iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. 12. The application under Section 25(3) of the Act was filed by the Drug Inspector much before the complaint was presented and was withdrawn without intimating the petitioners and thus, there is a clear cut violation of Section 25(4) of the Act. 13. In the case of M/s. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. (supra), it was held that the complaint was filed in the Court about a month short of expiry date of the shelf life of the drug and it would become virtually impossible for the accused to effectively exercise the valuable right provided under Section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act. 14. In this background I am of the opinion that the controversy involved in the case at hand is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited and Ors. and Northern Mineral Limited (supra), on the aspect of non-providing of the part of sample to the manufacturing firm thereby violating Section 23(4)(iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and M/s. Medicamen Biotech Ltd. (supra) because the complaint was filed well after expiry of the shelf life of the drug. 15. In view of the above facts, allowing proceedings of the impugned complaint to be continued against the accused petitioners would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of the Court. Hence the same deserves to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 06.11.2009 and 30.05.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar as well as the proceedings of the impugned Criminal Complaint No.160/2012 pending in the said court are hereby quashed. 17. Record be returned to the trial court.