S.J. Hyder, J.@mdashThis is an application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicants are manufacturers of drugs meant for veterinary purposes. It appears that on 20th February 1979 I. J. Saighal, Drug Inspector inspected the premises of Messrs Friends R. Medicure Chemists, 4 Subhash Marg, Ghaziabad and seized samples of Anti Rabid Vaccine of Dr. Khan''s condition tablets. The labels attached to the containers of these medicines indicated that they had been manufactured by Dr. Khan himself at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. One of the partners of the firm Messrs Medicure Ghaziabad gave out to the Drug Inspector that the drugs had been supplied to his firm by Shams Alam Khan applicant No. 1. He further informed the Drug Inspector that Shams Alam Khan would visit his shop for further supplies on 21-2-1976 at about 12 noon. On February 21, 1976 Shams Alam Khan came to the shop of Messrs Friends R. Medicure Chemist and the complainant took into his possession 11 items consisting of drugs and other articles. The Anti Rabid Vaccine and Canine Distemper Hepatitis Vaccine supplied by the applicant No. 1 were not labelled in the prescribed manner and were allegedly misbranded.
2. The authorities constituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act informed the Delhi Administration as to that was happening. This was considered necessary as the applicant''s firm was Delhi based and as the firm happened to be situated at Vasant Vihar, the Deputy Drugs Controller, Delhi got the premises of the applicant at Vasant Vihar searched and found certain alleged irregularities. A complaint has been made to the competent court at Delhi by the appropriate officer authorised to do so under the Act. On the basis of that complaint a charge sheet has been drawn against the applicant. Another complaint was filed by the appropriate officer at Ghaziabad against the applicants. The II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad on 6-10-1980 framed as many as four charges against the applicants for violation of the provisions of the Act.
3. The applicant''s grievance is that he is being prosecuted for the same offence both at Delhi and also at Ghaziabad. He has prayed that his trial pending before the II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad may be quashed.
4. True it is that there is some confusion about the offence alleged to have been committed by the applicants. It is not necessary to probe the matter further. Suffice it to say that the applicants could only be proceeded in respect of the offences which are said to have been committed by them on February 20, 1976 and February 21, 1976 at Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad court has no jurisdiction in respect of any offence which may have been committed by the applicants within the Union Territory. The charges framed by the II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, are not happily worded. Ex-facie it appears that the II Ird and the I Vth charges against the applicants are identical with the I Ind and II Ird charges framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The I Ind charge framed by the II Ird Additional Sessions Judge is also couched in an unhappy language. It does not bring out succinctly facts stated by the prosecution with regard to the visit of Shams Alam Khan to Messres Friends R. Medicure, Ghaziabad on 21st February 1976 at 12 noon and the happenings which took place at the said time. It is made clear that the applicant cannot be charged for stocking medicines unless there is some allegation in the complaint that such stocking is being done within the jurisdiction of Ghaziabad courts. At the risk of repeating myself 1 may reiterate that the applicants cannot be charged or tried by the Ghaziabad courts in respect of offences committed by them within the jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Delhi,
5. The result is that this application partly succeeds. The II Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad is directed to reframe the charges against the applicants in accordance with the observations made in the body of this judgment.
