KRISHAN MURARI MEHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred " Cr.PC ."), the petitioner seeks grant of Anticipatory Bail in FIR No. 239/2017 under Sections 18 / 27 Drugs and Cosmetics Act registered at Police Station Kotwali, New Delhi. Status report is on record.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that complainant Vishal Sachan of the Drugs Control Department F-17, Karkadooma Delhi on 07-09- 2017 along with other witnesses inspected the premises of a small protein supplement shop "M/s Ashish Medicos", situated at Shop No. 1704 G. F, Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in the presence of the petitioner who was stated to be the Proprietor-cum- Person Incharge and responsible for the conduct of day to day business of the firm at the aforesaid premises. The petitioner had Food License 13315001000387 on Form "C" issued by Department of Food Safety, A-20, Lawrence Road Ind. Area, New Delhi. However, the petitioner held stocks for sale and distribution of various allopathic drugs without holding a requisite drug license as required by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940 and Rules made thereunder. The Drug Inspector seized and took into his possession all the 11 unlicensed items of drugs stocked for sale and distribution from the sale premises. Subsequently, on the complaint of the Drug Inspector Vishal Sachan the said case was registered and investigation was taken up.

(3.) Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that towards the end of July, 2017 somebody representing himself to be a Medical Representative dealing in building supplements left a packet of tablets used by body builders at the shop of the petitioner as a trial for the customers of the petitioner. Though the petitioner was not interested in them he could not say no and 11 items including tablets were left in a packet in the shop. However, they were neither displayed nor advertised or offered for sale by the petitioner. The petitioner is 68 years of age, has clear antecedents and is willing to remain co- operative. Thus, it is prayed that the petitioner be granted anticipatory bail.