A.R. MARAGATHAVALLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is to quash the private complaint in CC.No.220 of 2019 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tiruvallur for the offences under Sec. 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is Punishable under Sec. 27(b) (ii) of the said Act.

(2.) It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner is the proprietrix of M/s.Shanmuga Agencies; that on 25/6/2018, the respondent inspected the premises at No.9, Ground Floor, Krishnan Koil Street, Alwarthirunagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai- 600 087 (hereafter referred to as new premises); that certain drugs were found stocked in the said premises; that the respondent had issued a letter under Sec. 22(1) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to the petitioner to furnish certain documents; that the petitioner had produced a drug licence granted to her to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute drugs in the premises at No.36, Ground Floor, VOC Street, Kaikankuppam, Valasaravakkam, Chennai - 600 087 (hereafter referred to as old premises); that she had shifted the premises from the above said address to the new premises; that since the petitioner did not obtain a valid license to sell/stock drugs in the new premises, she was liable under Sec. 18 (c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is also stated in the complaint that certain samples of the drugs, stocks were taken and those samples were reported as standard quality by the Government Analyst Drugs Testing Laboratory, Chennai; that the respondent issued a show cause notice dtd. 29/10/2018 to explain as to why the action should not be taken for stocking and selling in unlicensed premises; that the petitioner had sent a reply stating that since the landlord had asked her to vacate the old premises immediately, she could not inform the authorities concerned; that as the petitioner admittedly did not have license to stock in the new premises had violated the conditions of license and hence was liable for the offence under Sec. 18(c) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is Punishable under Sec. 27 (b) (ii) of the said Act.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the petitioner had a valid license for selling, stocking drugs at the old premises. However on the date of inspection, in the new premises, it is true that she did not have a valid license to stock or sell in the new premises. The learned counsel submitted that the new premises is one street away from the old premises. She had to vacate the old premises within a short time since the landlord asked her to vacate immediately. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authorities concerned had granted license bearing licence No.1549/ZIV/20V to the new premises on 6/7/2018. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the alleged violation was not intentional and in any case is very trivial. Further, the fact that the respondent had found that the drugs were standard quality show that the petitioner has been doing business in lawful manner. That apart, the learned counsel submitted that in the new premises, they had stocked medicines of negligible quantity. Hence, the learned counsel prayed that in view of the above and considering the fact that subsequently licence was granted to the petitioner to the new premises, the impugned complaint may be quashed.