JUDGMENT : MOHAN LAL, J. 1. By invoking the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (hereafter referred as the 'Code”) petitioner has sought the quashment of Criminal Proceedings in Case No. 179/75/complaint with date of institution 16.04.2010 pending trial before the court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Udhampur for commission of offences punishable u/ss 18(a)(i) r/w Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 alongwith all orders passed there from. It is averred, that petitioner is a partnership firm having it's registered office at Ogli Nahan Road Kala Amb-173033 (HP), the partners in the firm have authorized their one of the partner's namely Mr. Ashok Tayagi to maintain the present petition, petitioner had acquired the license being license No. MNB/05/207 and MB/05/208 on Form No. 25 & 28 for manufacturing, sale and distribution of drugs which license was duly renewed from time to time. It is moreso averred, that respondent has field a criminal complaint u/s 18(a)(i) r/w Section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act against petitioner and proforma respondents 2 to 4 (being Accused No. 1 & 3 in the said complaint) for the allegations, that on 19.12.2008 Respondent No. 1 lifted sample of “BINSPAS” Tablets from the premises of proforma Respondent No. 2 with details i.e.; Batch No. OT-305, date of MGF July 2008, Exp. Dt. June 2010, manufactured by M/s August Remedies, the portion of drug in question was sent to Govt. Analyst for analysis vide Form No. 18 on 19.12.2018 and the Govt. Analyst vide it's report dated 10.10.2009 declared the drug in question 'not of standard quality' as prescribed under the Drug and Cosmetic Act, Respondent No. 1 asked proforma Respondent No. 2 to disclose source of purchase who disclosed the source of purchase from proforma Respondent No. 3, when proforma Respondent No. 3 was asked to disclose source of purchase from proforma Respondent No. 4 who in the end disclosed the name of petitioner as source of purchase. It is stated, that vide letter dated 22.01.2010 dispatched on 19.02.2010 and received by the petitioner on 27.02.2010, Respondent No. 1 informed petitioner that the drug in question manufactured by the petitioner is found to be not of standard quality, Govt. It is stated, that vide letter dated 22.01.2010 dispatched on 19.02.2010 and received by the petitioner on 27.02.2010, Respondent No. 1 informed petitioner that the drug in question manufactured by the petitioner is found to be not of standard quality, Govt. Analyst CFDC Jammu copy of report was also communicated to the petitioner who was not made aware of his valuable right as envisaged u/s 25(4) of the Act for getting the sample re-tested from sample laboratory and never sent the sample portion of drug in question to the petitioner, petitioner replied the aforementioned notice vide Registered letter No. 26.03.2010 wherein petitioner detailed replied to their allegations and also demanded the re-testing of the drug in question from central laboratory, however, Respondent No. 1 instead of sending the drug in question to the central laboratory for re-analysis deliberately filed the present complaint against petitioner and proforma respondents, suppressed the reply submitted by the petitioner, wherein, petitioner disputed the test report of local Govt. Analyst and demanded the re-testing, however, Respondent No. 1 filed the complaint on 16.04.2010 just one month before expiry of shelf life period of drug in question. It is averred, that perusal of complaint reveals that there is no reference to the actual role played by petitioner and his partners therefore no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner, court below without application of mind took cognizance against the petitioner when the substantial right of petitioner getting the drug re-tested was denied to the petitioner by deliberate conduct of Respondent No. 1 and failure on his part to supply one sealed sample portion of drug in question to the petitioner as mandated in Section 23(4)(iii) is abuse of process of law, present complaint is filed just one month before expiry of shelf life period of drug in question and by the time the petitioner was summoned and appeared in court on 04.11.2011 the drug in question had already expired, petitioner has lost his valuable right of getting the drug in question re-tested from central laboratory which has caused serious prejudice and denial of opportunity to the petitioner to avail his vital right provided u/s 25(4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the complaint filed is without jurisdiction and is abuse of process of law the same is liable to be quashed. 2. 2. Respondent No. 1 by filing objections has sought the dismissal of the petition on the grounds, that the allegations alleged in the complaint prima-facie constitute an offence against the petitioner and proforma respondents under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, the offences are serious in nature and against public health as the drug manufactured by the petitioner was declared to be not of standard quality by the report of Govt. Analyst, none of the legal fundamental or statutory rights of petitioner under Constitution of India have been infringed, petitioner has raised disputed question of facts which are required to be appreciated only at the stage of trial. It is contended, that answering Respondent No. 1 in exercise of powers vested u/ss 22 & 23 of the Act visited the premises of proforma Respondent No. 2 under the name and style of M/s Ravi Medical Agency Udhampur and lifted sample of drug in question i.e. Tablets BINSPAS (Batch No. 07-305, July 2008 Exp. June, 2010) manufactured by petitioner's company, the said drug was sent to Govt. Analysis CFDL Jammu for test and analysis and was declared not a standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. It is moreso contended, that during investigation, it was found that the drug in question was supplied and sold to proforma Respondent No. 2 by proforma Respondent No. 3 and in turn proforma Respondent No. 4 sold and supplied drug to proforma Respondent No. 3 which was manufactured by petitioner's company, a notice dated 22.02.2010 was also sent to petitioners company through registered post informing them of the report of Govt. Analyst, and finally after completing the investigation as required under the Act and receipt of sanction from office of Controller Drugs and Food Control, complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioner in the court of Ld. CJM Udhampur u/s 18(a)(i) r/w Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. Analyst, and finally after completing the investigation as required under the Act and receipt of sanction from office of Controller Drugs and Food Control, complaint was filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioner in the court of Ld. CJM Udhampur u/s 18(a)(i) r/w Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. It is contended, that the trial court has rightly taken cognizance against petitioner and other proforma respondents, the question of denial of substantial right of the petitioner by supplying one sealed sample portion of drug in question does not arise, there are specific allegations in the complaint against petitioner's company, the Managing Director and Directors of the petitioner's company that the drug declared is not of standard quality which has been manufactured by them, all the mandatory provisions in regard to sampling and sealing of drug in question have been followed, as such, petitioner and proforma respondents have been arrayed as accused for violating Section 18(a)(i) r/w Section 27(d) of the Act who are liable to be punished accordingly. 3. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has sought the quashment of criminal proceedings in complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Court of CJM Udhampur bearing Case No. 179/75 complaint with all orders arising there from vide which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner by canvassing arguments, that the court below without application of mind has taken cognizance against petitioner when the substantial right of petitioner getting the drug re-tested was denied to him by deliberate conduct of Respondent No. 1 and failure on his part to supply one sealed sample portion of drug in question to the petitioner as mandated in Section 23(4)(iii) is abuse of process of law. It is argued, that present complaint was filed before the court of Ld. Munsiff (District Judicial Mobile Magistrate) Udhampur on 16.04.2010 just one month before the expiry of shelf life period of drug in question dated June 2010, which was submitted to the trial court of Ld. CJM Udhampur on 05.08.2010 and by the time the petitioner was summoned and appeared in Trial Court of Ld. Munsiff (District Judicial Mobile Magistrate) Udhampur on 16.04.2010 just one month before the expiry of shelf life period of drug in question dated June 2010, which was submitted to the trial court of Ld. CJM Udhampur on 05.08.2010 and by the time the petitioner was summoned and appeared in Trial Court of Ld. CJM Udhampur on 04.11.2011, the drug in question had already expired, whereby, petitioner has lost his valuable right of getting the drug in question re-tested from central laboratory which has caused serious prejudice and denial of opportunity to the petitioner to avail his vital right provided u/s 25(4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, thereby, the complaint filed is without jurisdiction and is abuse of process of law, the same alongwith all the orders arising there from require its setting aside/quashment. To support his arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon (i) the Judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in CRMC No. 614 of 2006, dated 30.09.2022 titled Cipla Limited v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. and (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 13 of 2007, dated 13.03.2008 decided by Supreme Court of India titled M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector. 4. Ld. Sr. AAG for respondents has sought the dismissal of petition by projecting arguments, that Respondent No. 1 after completing the investigation and all the legal formalities as envisaged under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 filed complaint against the petitioner and other respondents u/ss 18(a)(i) r/w Section 27(d) of the aforesaid Act, the trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner, the drug sample has been declared not of standard quality, all the mandatory provisions in regard to sampling and sealing of drug in question have been followed, therefore the petitioner alongwith other proforma respondents need to be punished accordingly. 5. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRMC No. 614 of 2006, dated 30.09.2022 titled Cipla Limited v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. relied by Ld. 5. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRMC No. 614 of 2006, dated 30.09.2022 titled Cipla Limited v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, while dismissing the complaint and order of taking cognizance by the court of CJM Jammu dated 29.01.2010 by issuing process against petitioner/accused and observing that valuable right of the petitioner/accused envisaged under section 25(3)(4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been violated, in paras 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 & 20 held as under: (13) On account of inaction of the respondents, the valuable right of the petitioner to adduce evidence in controversion to the report of the Government Analyst has been lost. The matter does not rest here, the respondents have lodged the impugned complaint against the petitioner on 29th January, 2010 whereas the date of expiry of the Drug in question was January, 2010. Thus, no time was left with the petitioner to even seek an order of re-testing of the sample after filing of the complaint, as by that time the drug in question had already outlived its life. This clearly points to the fact that the respondents have by their inaction defeated the right of the petitioner to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Government Analyst. This negligence and inaction on part of the complainant is fatal to the prosecution case. (14) High Court of Bombay in M/s Zim Laboratories, Bombay & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 Cri. L.J. 2903, in somewhat similar circumstances quashed the order of taking cognizance and set aside the complaint. While doing so, the Court relied upon following observations of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970 : “It appears to us that when a valuable right is conferred by Section 13(2) of the Act on the vendor to have the sample given to him analysed by the Director of Central Food Laboratory, it is to be expected that the prosecution will proceed in such a manner that right will not be denied to him. The right is a valuable one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. The right is a valuable one, because the certificate of the Director supersedes the report of the Public Analyst and is treated as conclusive evidence of its contents. Obviously, the right has been given to the vendor in order that, for his satisfaction and proper defence, he should be able to have the sample kept in his charge analysed by a greater expert whose certificate is to be accepted by Court as a conclusive evidence. In a case where there is denial of this right on account of the deliberate conduct of the prosecution, we think that the vendor, in his trial, is so seriously prejudiced that it would not be proper to uphold his conviction on the basis of the report of the Public Analyst, even though that report continues to be evidence in the case of the facts contained therein.” (15) Similarly, in Nikson Pharmaceuticals & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2008 (3) Crimes 573 (Raj.), the High Court of Rajasthan has observed that expiry date of sample is relevant and in order to safeguard the rights of accused to have sample tested from Central Insecticide Laboratory, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to file complaint expeditiously so that right of accused is not lost. (17) In State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. (1999) 8 SCC 190 , the Supreme Court while dealing with a case under the provisions of Insecticides Act, which are analogous to the provisions contained in Section 25(4) of the Act, has observed as under: “12. It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticides Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. By the time the matter reached the court, shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. 13. In these circumstances, High Court was right in concluding that it will be an abuse of the process of court if the prosecution is continued against the respondents -the accused persons. High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint. We uphold the order of the High Court and would dismiss the appeals.” (19) From the foregoing analysis of the legal position, it is clear that once it is established that valuable right of the accused to adduce evidence in controversion of the Government Analyst's report is defeated due to acts and omissions of the Drugs Inspector, prosecution against the accused deserves to be quashed. (20) In the instant case, the sequence of events, as narrated in the preceding paras, shows that the Respondent-Drugs Inspector has failed to adhere to the mandatory requirements, inasmuch as he has not taken steps with reasonable dispatch so that the petitioner could have availed its right to get the sample re-tested in accordance with the its right under Section 25(3) of the Act. There has been inaction on part of the Drugs Inspector in responding to the communications of the petitioner seeking clarification regarding sample of the drugs and the record further shows that though the sample of the drug was collected on 24th July, 2007, report of Government Analyst was obtained only on 25th April, 2008 i.e. after about nine months. This clearly depicts inaction and negligence on part of the respondents, which has resulted in loss of valuable right to the petitioner. Similarly, in Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 13 of 2007, dated 13.03.2008 decided by Supreme Court of India titled M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector further relied by Ld. Similarly, in Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 13 of 2007, dated 13.03.2008 decided by Supreme Court of India titled M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector further relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India quashed the proceedings on the ground that the accused in the said case has been deprived of valuable right under Section 25(3) & 25(4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 7. Ratios of the judgments (Supra) relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, squarely apply to the facts of the case in hand. In the case in hand, complaint against petitioner and proforma respondents 2 to 4 has been filed in the court of Ld. Munsiff (District Judicial Mobile Magistrate) Udhampur on 16.04.2010 before the expiry date of June 2010 of the drug BINSPAS Tablets in question, however, the complaint in hand was submitted to the trial court of Ld. CJM Udhampur on 05.08.2010. The scanned record of trial court of Ld. CJM Udhampur depicts that the petitioner was summoned and appeared in the trial court on 04.11.2011 and by that time the date of drug in question had expired on June, 2010. Respondent No. 1 Drug Inspector failed to adhere to the mandatory requirements, in as much as, he did not take steps with reasonable dispatch so that petitioner could have availed it's right to get the sample of drug of BINSPAS Tablets re-tested in accordance with it's right mandated u/s 25(3) of the Act. There has been inaction on part of respondent no. 1 Drug Inspector which clearly depict negligence on his part, which has resulted in loss of valuable right of the petitioner to get the drug sample re-tested. By the time the petitioner appeared in the court on 04.11.2011, the shelf life of sample drug of BINSPAS Tablets had already expired on June 2010 (i.e. almost 1 year and 5 months elapsed) and no purpose would have been served informing the court of such an intention of the petitioner to get the drug re-tested which stood already expired. Therefore, in light of ratios of the judgments (Supra) a valuable statutory right guaranteed to the petitioner (accused) as envisaged u/s 25(3) & 25(4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been violated causing serious prejudice to his defense, whereby, the prosecution against petitioner (accused) deserved to be quashed. 8. Therefore, in light of ratios of the judgments (Supra) a valuable statutory right guaranteed to the petitioner (accused) as envisaged u/s 25(3) & 25(4) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 has been violated causing serious prejudice to his defense, whereby, the prosecution against petitioner (accused) deserved to be quashed. 8. For all what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is allowed, and the impugned complaint pending trial before the court of Ld. CJM Udhampur alongwith all the proceedings/orders emanating there from stand quashed. 9. Disposed off accordingly alongwith connected CMPs if any. Copy of this order be forthwith transmitted to the trial court for information and compliance.