Writ quashing of criminal proceedings needs clear illegality; territorial jurisdiction turns on offence location, not accused residence.

Extraordinary writ interference to quash criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage is justified only where a grave illegality or clear jurisdictional defect is shown; otherwise, objections should be raised before the trial court during evidence and trial. Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute depends on the place where the alleged offence occurred, not the accused's residence outside the local area. On those principles, the challenge to quash the pending prosecution failed and the jurisdictional objection to the Drugs Inspector was rejected, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted to quash the criminal proceedings at the interlocutory stage. (ii) Whether the Drugs Inspector lacked jurisdiction to initiate prosecution merely because the appellant resided outside the local area.

Issue (i): Whether interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was warranted to quash the criminal proceedings at the interlocutory stage.

Analysis: The governing principle is that criminal proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed at an early stage unless a grave illegality or clear jurisdictional defect is shown. The materials placed did not justify interference with the pending trial, and the objections raised by the appellant were matters to be agitated before the criminal court in the course of evidence and trial.

Conclusion: The request for quashing or interference at that stage was rejected and the appellant was left to pursue available objections before the trial court.

Issue (ii): Whether the Drugs Inspector lacked jurisdiction to initiate prosecution merely because the appellant resided outside the local area.

Analysis: The place where the offence is committed is material, not the residence of the accused. Since the drugs were found within the local jurisdiction where the sample was taken and the alleged offence related to sale, stocking, or distribution of substandard drugs in that area, the Inspector had authority under the Act to proceed. No prima facie want of jurisdiction was established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the competency and jurisdiction of the Drugs Inspector failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were without merit, and the criminal prosecutions were permitted to proceed before the trial court, with the jurisdictional challenge to the Inspector alone being finally negatived.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary writ interference to quash criminal proceedings at a preliminary stage is justified only on a clear case of grave illegality or lack of jurisdiction, and territorial jurisdiction to prosecute depends on the place of commission of the offence rather than the accused's residence.

---