JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Drugs & Cosmetics Act Case No.01 of 2022 whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara for the offences punishable under Sections 18 (a) (i), 18 (a) (vi), 18 (b) and 27 (d) of the Drug & Cosmetic Act, 1940 which is now pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the Drug Inspector on 23.07.2021 collected sample of drug being Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Tablets I.P. 500 Mg from Sri Arun Kumar, District Store, Sadar Hospital, Jamtara and sent the same for analysis to the Government analyst. On 29.12.2021 the Government analyst reported that the sample does not confirm to I.P. with respect to the test of dissolution. The result was as under:- Level Result Acceptance Criteria S1 (6 tablets) Release of each individual unit was found less than the specified limit “D” 80%+5%; Average drug release of 6 units was found 27.30% and all the 6 units were found below D-25%. Tablet 1-29.25% Tablet 2-25.16% Tablet 3- 26.68%. Tablet 4- 26.37% Tablet 5- 22.58% Tablet 6- 33.80% Not less than 80% The said drug was manufactured by the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 was the Assistant General Manager, Production and the petitioner No.3 was the Manager, Quality Control and thus both the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were directly responsible for ensuring the production and quality control of the drugs concerned; up to the standard, it should have been. The sample along with the report was sent to the petitioner No.1 on 08.01.2022 but the same was not responded by the petitioner No.1. Again, on 31.01.2022, a clarification was sought for from the petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.1 on 16.02.2022 submitted its explanation and demanded a portion of the sealed sample. The same was dispatched to the petitioner No.1 on 10.03.2022. Ultimately, on 07.06.2022, the petitioner No.1 submitted its clarification intimating that under the supervision of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the sub-standard Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Tablets I.P. 500 Mg was manufactured. The petitioner No.1 on 16.02.2022 submitted its explanation and demanded a portion of the sealed sample. The same was dispatched to the petitioner No.1 on 10.03.2022. Ultimately, on 07.06.2022, the petitioner No.1 submitted its clarification intimating that under the supervision of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, the sub-standard Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Tablets I.P. 500 Mg was manufactured. Alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences under Sections 18 (a) (i), 18 (a) (vi), 18 (b) punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, an official complaint was lodged by the State of Jharkhand through its Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare Department by the Drug Inspector concerned in the court of Sessions Judge, Jamtara. The learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara vide order dated 29.11.2022 in Drugs & Cosmetics Act Case No.01 of 2022 perused the prosecution report and found sufficient materials to proceed against the accused person of the case cited in the complaint for having committed the offences under Sections 18 (a) (i), 18 (a) (vi), 18 (b) punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and took cognizance of the said offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as the petitioners who are the accused persons of the case, are residing in a place beyond the area in which any Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction; so, the Sessions Judge ought to have postponed the issue of process against the petitioners; who are the accused persons of the case and either enquired into the case himself or directed an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit; for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. But the learned Sessions Judge having not done so but instead having straightaway taken cognizance on the basis of official complaint, hence, the same is not sustainable in law. But the learned Sessions Judge having not done so but instead having straightaway taken cognizance on the basis of official complaint, hence, the same is not sustainable in law. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435 wherein in the facts of that case where the complaint case involved the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and where the complaint was filed by a private person against the officials of IFFCO but the learned Magistrate concerned, without meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though the accused persons of the case were outside his territorial jurisdiction, considering the object of amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; as amended by Amendment Act of 2005, making it mandatory to postpone the issue of process where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned and that the object of the amendment was to protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons and making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself, or to direct investigation to be made by a police officer; the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also considering the attending facts, other justifiable reasons for quashing the complaint case, quashed the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Nand Shastri & Others vs. State of Jharkhand, through Inspector of Drugs reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 517 wherein in the facts of that case when the case was pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar and the learned Magistrate without postponing the issue of process even though the accused persons were residing outside the area of its jurisdiction, took cognizance of the offence, quashed the cognizance order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Maithon Power Limited, through its authorized Signatory Mr. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Maithon Power Limited, through its authorized Signatory Mr. Satish Kumar & Another vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Jhar 821 wherein in the facts of that case where the penal offences involved were under Sections 276 (B) and 278 (B) of the Income Tax Act, when the case was pending in the court of Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad, in the facts of that case taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the discussion made by it, quashed the order passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Dhanbad in connection with C.O. Case No.13 of 2017. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that as mentioned, identically in paragraphs-6 and 8 of this criminal miscellaneous petition, it is a requirement under Section 23 (4) (iii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 that not handing over the collected sample to the company at the time of collecting the sample, is violation of mandatory provisions of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2018) 15 SCC 93 paragraphs-7, 8 and 9 of which read as under:- “7. The cognizance of the offence(s) alleged in the present case was taken on 4-3-2015 though it appears that the complaint itself was filed on 28-11-2012. According to the appellant the cough syrup had lost shelf life in the month of November 2012 itself. Even otherwise, it is reasonably certain that on the date when cognizance was taken, the shelf life of the drug in question had expired. The Magistrate, therefore, could not have sent the sample for reanalysis by the Central Laboratory. 8. All the aforesaid facts would go to show that the valuable right of the appellant to have the sample analysed in the Central Laboratory has been denied by a series of defaults committed by the prosecution; firstly, in not sending to the appellant manufacturer part of the sample as required under Section 23(4)(iii) of the Act; and secondly, on the part of the Court in taking cognizance of the complaint on 4-3-2015 though the same was filed on 28-11-2012. The delay on both counts is not attributable to the appellants and, therefore, the consequences thereof cannot work adversely to the interest of the appellants. As the valuable right of the accused for reanalysis vested under the Act appears to have been violated and having regard to the possible shelf life of the drug we are of the view that as on date the prosecution, if allowed to continue, would be a lame prosecution. 9. Consequently and for the reasons alluded we are of the view that the present would be a fit case to interdict the criminal trial against the appellant-accused. We order accordingly. Therefore, CC No. 263 of 2015 pending on the file of the XVth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai is hereby quashed. The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India passed in Crl. O.P. No.23942 of 2015 dated 01.04.2021 , wherein in the facts of that case it was held that only in the test for dissolution, if there is a variation within the limit than no prosecution is needed. In the facts of that case the drug Phosphate Buffer does not comply about 10% of the claim. In the facts of that case, it was observed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that it cannot be classified as a sub-standard drug as per second schedule and thus, a criminal prosecution could not be initiated. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that though the case was lodged on 16.11.2022 in the court of Sessions Judge, Jamtara, the sample was not handed over to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who have been made accused. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Drugs & Cosmetics Act Case No.01 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara which is now pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, be quashed and set aside. 11. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Drugs & Cosmetics Act Case No.01 of 2022 whereby and where under cognizance has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara which is now pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Drugs & Cosmetics Act Case No.01 of 2022 whereby cognizance has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge Jamtara which is now pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara. Learned Spl.P.P. further submits that Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which comes under chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure is applicable only to complaints to Magistrate and this is a case which is instituted under a special statute where the complaint has been made to the learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara. It is next submitted that the proviso of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that the direction for an investigation shall not be applicable where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of Sessions. It is next submitted that the object of Amendment of 2005 is to prevent a person named as an accused in any complaint from being called upon to face an unnecessary, frivolous or meritless complaint and to find out whether there is some material to support the allegations made in the complaint. But in this case where the official complaint itself has been instituted by the State of Jharkhand in a court of Sessions, the non-compliance of Section 202 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure will not be a justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding; hence the State cannot prosecute a person unnecessarily, like a private litigant. It is next submitted that after disclosure of the name of the manufacturer under Section 18 (a), one portion of the sample has been provided to the petitioner No.1 in compliance of the provision under Section 23 (4) (iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945. 12. It is next submitted that after disclosure of the name of the manufacturer under Section 18 (a), one portion of the sample has been provided to the petitioner No.1 in compliance of the provision under Section 23 (4) (iii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945. 12. It is further submitted by learned Spl.P.P. that though the report along with the sample was sent to the petitioner No.1 on 10.03.2022 but the petitioner No.1 has not notified in writing to the Drug Inspector or the court that he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of the report within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report and after much delay on 07.06.2022 only, he has responded to the report. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have no legal ground to defend the report of the same deemed to be accepted as evidence and at the most, the petitioner could have taken such plea during the trial of the case but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding, hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 13. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as the contention of the petitioners regarding non-compliance of the postponement of the process as mentioned in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that the complaint was filed in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara. The jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara to entertain the complaint is not in dispute. A plain reading of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that the said procedure is applicable in respect of the complaints made to the Magistrate. But the fact of this case is entirely different because in this case, under a special statute, the Sessions Judge is exercising the power. A plain reading of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that the said procedure is applicable in respect of the complaints made to the Magistrate. But the fact of this case is entirely different because in this case, under a special statute, the Sessions Judge is exercising the power. Thus, non-compliance of a provision of law by a Sessions Judge; which provision is mandatory only for a Magistrate; in the considered opinion of this Court, by itself is not a sufficient ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding more so when the complaint has been instituted by the State of Jharkhand itself which rules out to a substantial extent false implication of any accused only to harass him to face the rigors of a criminal trial. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this limb of the argument of the petitioners. 14. So far as the contention of the petitioners regarding third sample to be sent to the persons whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is concerned, firstly there is no averment in this entire Cr.M.P. to the effect that the Drug Inspector has not supplied the third portion of the sample to the petitioners; rather it has come through the counter-affidavit that the sample was sent to the petitioner No.1. It is the case of the petitioner No.1, that the petitioner No.1 is the Manufacturer of the sub-standard drugs, as per the disclosure made by it before the Civil Surgeon-cum-Secretary, District Health Committee, Jamtara. True it is, in paragraphs-11 of the instant Cr.M.P., it has been mentioned by the petitioners that the sample was not handed over to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3; thereby obviously admitting that the same was handed over to the petitioner No.1. As otherwise, it would have been pleaded that the sample was not handed over to the petitioners and not on to the the petitioner No. 2 and 3. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not the manufacturers of the sub-standard drug in question rather the petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer of the said drug and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have been arrayed as accused as under their supervision and control, such sub-standard drug was manufactured. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not the manufacturers of the sub-standard drug in question rather the petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer of the said drug and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have been arrayed as accused as under their supervision and control, such sub-standard drug was manufactured. So, they are not entitled to be supplied with this sample as per law, hence non-supply of the sample to them is of no legal consequence. 15. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any specific averment that the third portion of the sample was not sent to the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under Section 18 (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the mandatory requirement of law for sending the third portion of the sample whose name is disclosed under Section 18 (a) of the Act, will be of no help to the petitioners in this case more so because there is no allegation that there is expiry of the shelf life of the substandard tablets. 16. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India (supra) is concerned, in the facts of that case the non-compliance was about 10% of the standard. But in this case as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment the non-compliance is much higher. Hence the ratio of Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India (supra) is of no help to the petitioners. 17. Now, coming to the facts of the case; as already indicated above in this case, though the acceptance criteria was not less than 80% for release of the drug but the average drug release of six units was found to be 27.30%. So, there is a huge margin of non-compliance of the standard prescribed. Hence, the facts of the case of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India (supra) being entirely different from the facts of this case, the same is of no help to the petitioners. 18. Because of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any merit in this Cr.M.P. Accordingly, the same, being without any merit, is dismissed. 19. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., I.A. No.11308 of 2023 stands disposed of accordingly.