JUDGMENT : Subhash Chand, J. The instant criminal revision is preferred on behalf of petitioner, namely, Abhay Kumar Gupta against the order dated 08.05.2023 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamtara whereby the application for the discharge moved on behalf of the petitioner in connection with O.C.R Case No. 128 of 2015, corresponding to Drugs and Cosmetics Act no. 1/2017, under section 27(C) and 28-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been rejected. 2. The matrix of the complaint case is that on 16.08.2014 the sample of “Neomet Oral Suspension” Batch No.1 manufactured dated 01/2012 expiry date 12/2014 by M/s. New Lab Industry, Ram Nagar, Kurthaul, Patna was collected from the Sadar Hospital, Jamtara in Form No. 17 that sample was sent for the test to Govt. Analyst, Jharkhand State Drug Testing Laboratory, Namkum, Ranchi in Form No. 18. The sample of the “Neomet Oral Suspension” Batch No.1 manufactured dated 01/2012 expiry date 12/2014 manufactured by M/s. New Lab Industry, Kurthaul, Patna was declared ''not of standard quality” in respect of content and labelling as mentioned in Govt. Analyst test report no. GA-583 dated 19.09.2014 under provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. A copy of the test report was sent to the storekeeper namely, Mr. Rabindra Kumar, Drug Store, Sadar Hospital, Jamtara vide office letter no. 49/14 dated 11.10.2014 and to the Civil Surgeon, Jamtara vide office letter no. 48/14 dated 10.11.2014 asked to produce the purchase invoice of “Neomet Oral Suspension” Batch No.1 manufactured dated 01/2012 expiry date 12/2014. In compliance of the letter no. 49/14 dated 11.10.2014 the storekeeper namely, Mr. Rabindra Kumar produced the purchase invoice of M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and General Order suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi. 3. Vide office letter no. 56/14 dated 17.10.2014 M/s. Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi was asked to produce the purchase invoice of the drug in question and in the compliance of the same the representative of M/s Megha Enterprises produced the purchase invoice of M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi, Bill No. 211 dated 17.10.2012 and photocopy of the licence and renewal of the shop produced by M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi. Vide letter no.63/14 dated 11.11.2014 M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi was requested to produce the purchase invoice of drug in question. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi. Vide letter no.63/14 dated 11.11.2014 M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi was requested to produce the purchase invoice of drug in question. M/s Abhishek Enterprises denied to accept the letter which was returned. Vide office letter no. 69/14 dated 18.11.2014 Civil Surgeon, Jamtara requested to produce regarding the document of tender and bidding. In compliance of this letter, Civil Surgeon, Jamtara produced the documents regarding tender and bidding. After grant permission from the Director (Drugs), Directorate State Drugs Control Administration, Jharkhand, Namkum, Ranch, inspection of M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi was made alongwith Local Drug Inspector and the inspection report was submitted to the Director (Drugs), Directorate State Drugs Control Administration, Jharkhand, Namkum, Ranchi. A sealed portion of the sample and copy of the test report was also sent to Civil Surgeon, Jamtara in compliance for the provision of Drug and Cosmetic Act, 1940 under section 23(4), 25(2) and 18(a) because the manufacturer denied the manufacture the drug in question. In vide office letter no. 109/15 dated 02.06.2015 requesting grant approval for the prosecution and same was granted by the Director (Drugs), Directorate State Drugs Control Administration, Jharkhand, Namkum, Ranchi on 04.06.2015. 4. As per documents produced by the Civil Surgeon Office, Jamtara and the correspondence from suppliers and manufacturing companies (as per label), this had been established that “Neomet Oral Suspension” the drug in question was supplied and distributed to the Drug Store, Sadar Hospital, Jamtara making a false claim on the label. The manufacturer M/s New Lab Industry, Ramnagar, Kurthal, Patna had denied the manufacture of drug under his manufacturing license. M/s Abhishek Enterprises, B.N. Tower, 1st Floor, S.N. Road, Ranchi did not produce any evidence that could prove that the acquired drugs from the Manufacturer it indicate that M/s Abhishek enterprises and M/s Megha enterprises manufactured the spurious drug and distributed and supplied the same to the drug store, Sadar Hospital, Jamtara. Hence the accused no.2 and 3 had supplied and distributed spurious drug as defined under section 17-B and 18(a) of the said Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under section 27(c) of the same act. The manufacturer was asked to produce the copy of the manufacturing license, name of the proprietor, list of the distribution, product approval and person responsible for manufacturing of “Neomet Oral Suspension” drug in question. The manufacturer was asked to produce the copy of the manufacturing license, name of the proprietor, list of the distribution, product approval and person responsible for manufacturing of “Neomet Oral Suspension” drug in question. In compliance of the said letter, the manufacturer of the drug in question had denied to manufacture and distribution of the drug in question. Vide officer letter no. 92/15 dated 02.09.2015 and vide office reminder letter no. 95/15 dated 30.03.2015 to the manufacturer as per label he has not produced the documents as per demand. M/s. New Lab Industry, Ramnagar, Kurthal, Patna demand to produce the said documents would help in the investigation. Under these circumstances the prayer was made to launch the prosecution against the accused to put them on trial and to punish the accused Abhay Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Megha Enterprises, Nand Lal Prasad, Proprietor of M/s Abhishek Enterprises and Shri Kedar Singh Proprietor of M/s New Lab Industry, Ram Nagar, Kurthaul, Patna and with this complaint all the letters and documents as stated were made enclosures as Annexure-1 to 20 of the complaint. 5. The petitioner accused Abhay Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general order Suppliers move the application for discharge before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara and the same was rejected by the court below vide order dated 08.05.2023. 6. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 08.05.2023 the instant criminal revision was directed on behalf of the petitioner/accused on the ground that the learned court below had not taken into consideration that the petitioner was never the manufacturer of the medicine and the firm of the petitioner was only the supplier of the same. The learned court below has also not taken into consideration that firm purchased the said medicine from the firm of co-accused Abhishek Enterprises the same was never denied by the said firm. As such the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as alleged. The allegation has been made against the form of the petitioner namely, M/s Megha Enterprises but the same was not arrayed as an accused as such the complaint is also hit by the Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The allegation has been made against the form of the petitioner namely, M/s Megha Enterprises but the same was not arrayed as an accused as such the complaint is also hit by the Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The order of taking the cognizance and summoning the accused was illegal as such all the subsequent orders including refusing to discharge are also bad in the eye of law. Accordingly prayed to allow this criminal revision and to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned court below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP on behalf of the State and perused the material on record. 8. It is the settled legal proposition of law that the court while framing the charge or disposing the discharge application has to take into consideration only the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint itself and in case of a FIR case the investigation collected by the investigating officer during investigation. While in case of a complaint case in support of the allegations made in the complaint the document annexed with the complaint in support of the complaint allegations and also statement of the witnesses examined in support of the complaint allegations, as the case may be, should be taken into consideration. If from the same there are sufficient ground to proceed for the trial against the accused persons then the court should decline to allow the discharge application. 9. It is also the settled proposition of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of case law that while framing the charge the court concerned should not divulge in the evidence. The appreciation of the evidence or marshalling of the evidence is not permissible at this stage. The court cannot conduct the mini trial while framing the charge by appreciating the evidence on record. 10. Herein it would be pertinent to give the following legal propositions of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 10.1 In “Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited v. Sanjay Choudhary and others” (2008) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-11, which reads as under: “11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deals with discharge from criminal charge. 10.1 In “Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited v. Sanjay Choudhary and others” (2008) 10 SCC 681 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-11, which reads as under: “11. Sections 227, 239 and 245 deals with discharge from criminal charge. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy it was noted that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. The court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired into.” 10.2 In “Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others” (2008) 14 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-38, which reads as under : “38. In my view, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submission made on behalf at the stage of framing charge only such material as are indicated in Section 227 CrPC can be taken into consideration by the learned Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 CrPC the court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislation in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have to be worded as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi case by the larger Bench therein to which the very same question had been referred.” 10.3 In “Palwinder Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others” (2008) 14 SCC 504 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-13, which reads as under: “13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it entered into the realm of appreciation of the evidence at the stage of framing charge itself. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising the power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charge can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. The jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge while exercising the power under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited. Charge can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. The Marshalling and appreciation of the evidence is not in domain of the Court at the point of time. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 .” 10.4 In “Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and others” (2009) 16 SCC 429 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para-2, which reads as under: “2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of acquittal in garb of the order of discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in discharging the aforesaid accused persons.” 11. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the court below it is found that the court below after having gone through the allegations made in the complaint and also having gone through the documents as enclosed with the complaint in support of the allegations made passed the impugned order holding that there was sufficient material against the accused/petitioner to frame the charge. 12. The first and foremost plea as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case the form M/s Megha Enterprises has not been arrayed as a party and the complaint is barred by the provisions of Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 13. Herein it would be relevant to reproduce the Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which reads as under: “34. 13. Herein it would be relevant to reproduce the Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which reads as under: “34. Offences by companies.—(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section— (a) “company” means a body corporate, and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) “director” in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.” 14. From the perusal of the complaint itself it is found that accused no.1 is Abhay Kumar Gupta the proprietor of the M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi (drug licence no. RAN-104/99 in Form 20B, RAN-104A/99 in form 21B). As such it is evident that in the complaint itself Mr. Abhay Kumar Gupta has been impleaded as an accused in a capacity of the proprietor of M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi. In view of the Explanation-A of Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 the company means a body corporate and also included firm or other association of the individuals. Herein the firm is the M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi. In view of the Explanation-A of Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 the company means a body corporate and also included firm or other association of the individuals. Herein the firm is the M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi and it was Abhay Kumar Gupta who is the sole proprietor of the same has been impleaded as an accused in this case in the capacity of the proprietor of M/s Megha Enterprises, Govt. and general orders suppliers, Radium Road, Ranchi the firm itself. As such, there is no violation of any provisions of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In view of the same, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not found sustainable. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner/accused who is proprietor of the M/s Megha Enterprises has purchased the drug in questions “Neomet Oral Suspension” from Nand Lal Prasad the proprietor of the Abhishek Enterprises which is evident from the purchase memo of the drug which is also made part of the complaint who is accused no.2 in the complaint. 15.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is the supplier of the medicine which was supplied to him after proper tender and bidding. Same was approved and the drug in question was purchased from Abhishek Enterprises who had also purchased priorly from the New Lab Industry, Ramnagar, Kurthaul, Patna which is the manufacturing company. Simply the denial made by the New Lab Industry, Ramnagar, Patna the manufacturer of the drug in question that the drug in question was not manufactured by the New Lab Industry and was never sold to Abhishek Enterprises. It cannot be presumed that the spurious drug was prepared by the petitioner, the proprietor of M/s Megha Enterprises or Nand Lal Prasad, the proprietor of M/s Abhishek Enterprises. 16. The court below has held that M/s New lab industry, Ramnagar, Kurthaul, Patna has denied the manufacturing of the drug in question in compliance of the letter sent by the complainant. Mr. 16. The court below has held that M/s New lab industry, Ramnagar, Kurthaul, Patna has denied the manufacturing of the drug in question in compliance of the letter sent by the complainant. Mr. Abhay Kumar Gupta the proprietor of M/s Megha Enterprises and Nand Lal Prasad the proprietor of M/s Abhishek Enterprises who were supplier of the medicine the same was found “not of standard quality” after testing report from the Government of Jharkhand, State Drug Test Laboratory. 17. At the stage of framing charge the court concerned was not to scrutinize the evidence minutely rather taking into consideration the denial made by the manufacturing company that the drug in question was never manufactured by M/s New lab industry, Ramnagar, Kurthaul, Patna. The petitioner Abhay Kumar Gupta, the proprietor of M/s Megha Enterprises cannot evade from his responsibility in regard to the drug in question being of sub standard who was the supplier of the same. 18. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that sampling of the drug in question was not made in view of the mandatory provisions of section 23(4)(ii) and 23(4)(iii) has not been followed as such the sampling itself was defective. This issue is to be decided at the stage of trial. The same cannot be scrutinized by the court concerned while framing the charge. 19. Admittedly it was the petitioner who had supplied the drug in question to the drug storekeeper, drug store, Sadar Hospital, Jamtara. As such in view of the denial of the alleged manufacturing company without facing the trial it cannot be ascertained at the stage of framing charge that the petitioner was not responsible for supplying the drug in question which was spurious as the manufacturing company, the label of the same was affixed thereon has denied the manufacturing of the same who is also accused no.3 in the complaint. 19.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court held in “State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Venu Veterinary Division And Another” (2009) 16 SCC 282 : “14. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order totally overlooked the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act which denies defence plea to the accused that “he was ignorant of the nature, substance and quality of the drug or the circumstances of its manufacture”. Venu Veterinary Division And Another” (2009) 16 SCC 282 : “14. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order totally overlooked the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act which denies defence plea to the accused that “he was ignorant of the nature, substance and quality of the drug or the circumstances of its manufacture”. The only defence available to him, as set out in clause (b) of sub-section (3), is that “he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of the Act”. This defence plea, if at all available to the accused would be considered in accordance with sub-section (1) read with subsection (3) of Section 19 of the Act only after the prosecution has led its evidence to prove its case. There is no prohibition in any of the provisions of the Act that a dealer cannot be prosecuted for sale of spurious drug or drug of below standard quality without the manufacturer being made a co-accused. Such a conclusion by the High Court is not borne out from the provisions of the Act as discussed above.” 20. As such the learned court below has committed no illegality in rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner and the impugned order passed by the court below needs no interference. Accordingly, this criminal revision deserves to be dismissed. 21. This criminal revision petition is, hereby, dismissed and the impugned order passed by the learned court below is hereby affirmed. 22. Let the copy of the judgment be communicated to the learned court concerned.