T.S. GROVER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure O, complaint dated October 04, 2002 submitted the second respondent, the Regional Drugs Inspector, Ernakulam before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under S.18(a) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 (for short, "the DPC" Order) r/w S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short, "the Act") and the proceedings taken thereon are sought to be quashed, by accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 invoking jurisdiction of this Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"), they having failed in their attempt to get a discharge under S.245(2) of the Code.

(2.) The case against petitioners and others is that they, without good and sufficient reasons withheld supply of medicine as per orders dated 22/03/2000, 29/05/2000, 08/06/2000 and 14/06/2000 placed by the third respondent, their stockist. M/s. lnfar India Limited is the manufacturer of the medicine in question and M/s. Martin and Harris Ltd. its distributor. The third respondent is their stockist. Vide orders referred above, third respondent requested M/s.Martin and Harriss Ltd. to supply medicine mentioned therein and signed blank cheques were enclosed along with the respective orders for the price of medicine ordered and required to be supplied. Medicine was not supplied as per orders placed regarding which third respondent preferred a complaint to the Drugs Inspector which ultimately resulted in Annexure O, complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. Learned Magistrate took the case on file as CC No. 2494 of 2002.

(3.) Petitioners contend that no offence is made out on the allegations made in the complaint and that it is without satisfying whether petitioners had good and sufficient reasons to withhold supply of medicine that the second respondent filed the complaint. Petitioners were not even asked to explain whether they had good and sufficient reasons to withhold supply. It is contended that even as admitted by the third respondent and intimated to the second respondent, petitioners had supplied the medicine as per orders in question before second respondent preferred the complaint and based on that, third respondent had, with intimation to the second respondent withdrawn its complaint. In that circumstance there was no justification for the second respondent to prefer complaint against petitioners. It is contended that proceeding against petitioners is nothing but a travesty of justice and hence this Court may invoke its power under S.482 of the Code to quash the proceeding. Learned counsel, Shri. T. L. Tikku appearing for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 33994 of 2010 and the decision of the Supreme Court in V. P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. and Others, 2010 KHC 4708 : 2010 (159) Comp Cas 529 : 2010 (10) SCC 361. It is contended by the learned counsel that authorities under the DPC Order are not concerned with the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. It is pointed out that as per order passed by this Court on 07/06/2011 the second respondent conducted a fact finding enquiry and concluded that petitioners had good and sufficient reasons to withhold supply of medicine as per the orders in question. In such a situation continuance of proceeding before the Criminal Court is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court, waste of money, energy and time and in that circumstance this Court is justified in interfering under S.482 of the Code.