ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.593 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Khammam. 2. The Drug Inspector filed private complaint before the First Additional Judicial First Class Magitrate, Khammam stating that on 10.07.2008, the Drug Inspector namely K. Satyanarayana visited M/s.R.R.Medical Distributers, Khammam and seized Rablok tablets in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’). On the very same day, one sealed portion of the drug was sent to the Government lab for analysis at Hyderabad. On 05.02.2009, the said Drug Inspector received analyst report stating that the tablet Rablok was not of standard quality for the reason of failing disintegration test. Accordingly a notice was forwarded to the Proprietor of M/s.R.R.Medical from where the sample was lifted. Thereafter the Drug Inspector found after communicating with the concerned that the petitioners were manufacturers of the said drug. Accordingly, notice was issued on16.06.2009 to the first petitioner company. Having received the notice, a reply was given by the petitioner on 18.07.2009 stating that they do not have any stocks of tablets Rablok, however they did not agree with the report of the government analyst and intended to send one sample to the Central Drug Lab, Kolkata. On 18.08.2009, one sealed portion of the sample drug was deposited before the Court of the Additional Judicial First Magistrate at Khammam and requested to send the same to the Central Drug Lab, Kolkata for the purpose of analysis. 3. Since no report was received from the Central Drug Lab Kolkata, a letter was addressed to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata by the Drug Inspector requesting them to provide the status of analysis of the drug sent through First Class Judicial Magistrate, Khammam, seized in the present case. 4. The Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata by letter dated 08.02.2012 informed the Drug Inspector B.Lakshmi Narayana that no sample was received by the Central Drug Laboratory from First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam on or after 20.08.2009 till the date of sending the letter dated 08.02.2012. 4. The Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata by letter dated 08.02.2012 informed the Drug Inspector B.Lakshmi Narayana that no sample was received by the Central Drug Laboratory from First Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam on or after 20.08.2009 till the date of sending the letter dated 08.02.2012. Having received the letter, the Drug Inspector filed memo before the First Additional Judicial Magistrate Court stating that on the request made by the petitioners, one of the sample was sent to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata. However, the said lab did not receive the sample. Since the Government Drug Lab at Hyderabad had declared that the drug was not of standard quality and the drug expired in the month of September 2009, Drug Inspector requested the Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process. Aggrieved by the said issuance of process, the petitioners are questioning the correctness of the prosecution by the Drug Inspector, mainly on the ground of violation of their rights of the sample being tested under Section 25(3) and (4) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that when the Drug Analysis report was received stating that it was not of standard quality, immediately the petitioner had requested to send the sample to the Central Drug Laboratory Kolkata. Since no sample was sent to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, for which reason of violation of the petitioners right to challenge the State Drug Report under Section 25(3) of the Act, complaint is not maintainable. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Medicamen Biotech Limited v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector, (2008) 7 SCC 196 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the valuable right under Section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act have been deprived, it necessitates quashing of the proceedings. Learned counsel also cited decisions regarding powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and also the effect of vicarious liability on the persons responsible in the affairs of the company and argued that for the grounds raised, the proceedings have to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel also cited decisions regarding powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and also the effect of vicarious liability on the persons responsible in the affairs of the company and argued that for the grounds raised, the proceedings have to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that any document, which is signed by the Government analyst would be evidence of the facts stated therein and since State Drug Laboratory opined after analysis that the drug is not of standard quality, the prosecution cannot be quashed and on the basis of the analysis report by the State Drug Laboratory prosecution has to continue. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, the genesis of the case of the petitioners is depriving them of their right to get the sample drug tested before the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, which right accrues under Sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act. The other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not germane for adjudicating the present case. 9. Even according to the Drug Inspector, the petitioners declined to accept the analysis report issued by the State Drug Laboratory and requested the sample to be sent to the Central Drug Laboratory. Accordingly, a request was made by the Drug Inspector before the learned Magistrate for sending the sample to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata. However, it is admitted that the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata replied to the Drug Inspector stating that no such sample was received by them at any point of time. By the date of receiving the said letter from the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, the seized drug had already expired. 10. In the said circumstances, when the petitioners invoked their right to get the sample tested and for the reasons best known either to the registry of the learned Magistrate of Court or to the Drug Inspector, the sample drug was not received by the Central Drug Laboratory Kolkata. Whatever the reason, the sample drug was not received at the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata and the petitioners cannot be blamed for such lapses. Apparently, the right of the petitioners has been violated. Whatever the reason, the sample drug was not received at the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata and the petitioners cannot be blamed for such lapses. Apparently, the right of the petitioners has been violated. As claimed by the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution cannot be continued only on the basis of the analysis report of the State Drug Laboratory in the back ground of the petitioners invoking their right to send the sample to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata. In the event of there being no request by the petitioners to send the sample to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that the analysis has to be relied upon and prosecution to be proceed can be accepted. However, in the back ground of the assertion of the petitioners to invoke their right under Sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act, which has been violated, this Court deems it appropriate that the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be continued. 11. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/ A1 and A2 in C.C.No.593 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Khammam, are quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.