[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6199 OF 2012 Dated 14-8-2014 Between:
K.Venkateswarlu and another.
..Petitioners.
And:
The Drug Inspector, Zone-II, Vijayawada-8, Krishna District and another.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6199 OF 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional First Class Magistrate, Guntur for violation of sections 17-B (e) 18 (c) punishable under Sections 27 (c), 27 (b) (ii) and 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Petitioners herein are A.1 and A.2 in the above referred C.C. The Drug Inspector, Zone-II, Vijayawada-8, Krishna District filed complaint against the petitioners herein and three others alleging that on 8-3-2001, the complainant inspected M/s Balaji Medical Stores, Vijayawada and M/s.Vijaya Krishna Medical Stores, Vijayawada and purchased Alprax 0.5 Tabs on suspicion, and on demand, both of them informed that the stock was purchased from M/s. Mahalakshmi Medical Agencies i.e., A.1, and on the request of complainant, Mahalakshmi Medical Agencies disclosed the source of supply of the said drug, for which, he informed the complainant that he procured from M/s Maheswari Medical Corporation i.e.,A.4 and who confirmed the sale of drug to M/s.Vijaya Krishna Medical Stores, Vijayawada and thereafter, the complainant collected information from M/s Maheswari Medical Corporation and has filed charge sheet as the drug is spurious drug. According to charge sheet, A.5 created false firm and sold spurious drug without valid drug licence and A.3 firm represented by A.4 purchased the drug from A.5 and disturbed the same violating section 18 (c) and also Section 17-B (e) and that A.2 firm represented by A.1 sold the said spurious drug.
Heard both sides.
The main point urged by petitioners is that allegations against the petitioners are inherently improper and that the petitioners have got valid drug licence for stock and selling the drugs as a wholesaler and the drug in question was purchased during the validity period of licence and that petitioners are not agents of manufactures and they are only distributors and they cannot be fastened with the criminal liability without any knowledge of selling spurious drug.
Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the orders of this court in Criminal Petition No.1798 of 2009 dated 15-7-2009 and common order in batch of Criminal Petitions in Crl.P.Nos.5920 to 5925, 6074 to 6077 and 5941 to 5943 of 1999 for the proposition that the distributor cannot be prosecuted without any material that he has knowledge of the spurious nature of the drug.
Now, the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur can be quashed or not.
POINT:
I have perused orders relied on by the advocate for petitioners in the batch cases. In that case, distributor purchased the drug in question from duly licenced manufacturer and as the petitioners therein who are distributors for a licenced manufacturer could not know that the drug in question is of substandard nature and on that ground, the proceedings against them were quashed.
In Crl.P.No.1798 of 2009 also, the facts are similar and relying on the earlier orders, the proceedings in that case were also quashed.
But here, in this case, the specific allegation against the manufacturer is that spurious drug was manufactured without a valid drug licence and that the manufacturing firm is created with false name and the petitioners are prosecuted on the ground that they have supplied this drug to the shops from where the complainant purchased. So the facts of this case are quite contra to the facts to the cases in Criminal Petition No.1798 of 2009 dated 15-7-2009 or batch cases in Criminal Petition Nos. Crl.P.Nos.5920 to 5925, 6074 to 6077 and 5941 to 5943 of 1999.
When the main manufacturer has no valid drug licence to prepare such drug, he who supplied such drug as distributor, cannot be treated on a different footing. According to Section 19 of the Act, the plea now raised by the petitioners is a defence available to them which has to be determined during trial only after considering evidence adduced on behalf of complainant.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2003 on the file of IV Additional First Class Magistrate, Guntur and however petitioners are at liberty to urge these grounds in the trial court and the learned trial judge shall consider them without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Further since the C.C. is of the year 2003, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
For these reasons, this Criminal Petition is dismissed as observed above.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 14-8-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL PETITION No.6199 OF 2012 Dated 14-8-2014