K. RAJENDRAN Vs. DRUGS INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioners challenge their inclusion as accused 6 and 7 in C.C. No. 3369 of 1986, pending on the file of the XV. Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras at the instance of the Respondent - -Drugs Inspector, George Town I Range, Office of the Assistant State Drugs Controller Zone I, Madras 600 108, on a petition filed under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, before the trial Magistrate.

(2.) ON a private complaint preferred by the Respondent, the trial Magistrate took the case on file against five accused shown therein for alleged commission of offences under Sections 3(d), 3(e) and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, punishable under Section 7 of the said Act. The first accused in the complaint was the firm licensed to manufacture Siddha Proprietary medicines. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were partners of the firm of the first accused. The complaint reads that on routine verification of the advertisements in magazines, the Respondent noticed an advertisements in Kalki issue dated 15 -9 -1985 on 'KAYAKALPAM' at page 56. A scrutiny of the advertisement showed, that claim had been made for cure, mitigation and treatment of diseases, namely tuberculosis, heart diseases, blood pressure and menstrual disorders, suggesting or calculated to suggest such cure by the use of Kayakalpam.

(3.) AFTER the case was taken on file, at the instance of the Respondent, the trial Magistrate sent a notice to Vaidyanathan, editor, Kalki, stating that he had also been included as one of the accused in C.C. No. 3369/86. This notice was dated 5 -3 -1987. It appears from the records that Vaidyanathan, sought to be impleaded by the prosecuting agency, stated, he was only a publisher, and that the editor and assistant editor of Kalki, were K. Rajendran and P.S. Mani respectively. Thereafter, on 9 -4 -1987, another petition was filed by the Respondent, under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, before the trial Magistrate, which states about the aforesaid representation of Vaidyanathan. In this petition, the Respondent sought the intervention of the Court, to implead as accused 'on the question of vicarious liability' Raiendran, Mani as well as Vaidyanathan on behalf of M/s. Bharathan Publications (P) Limited. The learned Magistrate acceded to the request made by the prosecution in respect of the Petitioners, who were impleaded as A.6 and A.7, while the plea to implead Vaidyanathan was negatived. Thereafter, the prosecution chose to file another petition under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure, to include Vaidyanathan as a publisher and Murali as the printer. The prosecution apparently did not take any steps in the higher forum, against the earlier order of the trial magistrate, refusing to implead Vaidyanathan as one of the accused, in this prosecution.