N. KUMARESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) BOTH the Criminal Original Petitions are filed by A6 and A7 in CC. Nos. 3112 and 4852 of 2011, on the file of 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai -15, now transferred to the file of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as CC. Nos. 15/2014 and 23/2014, arising out of the private complaints filed by the respondent Drugs Inspector, for the contravention of Section 18(a)(i) r/w Section 17B(D) and Section 18(a)(i) respectively, for having manufactured and sold lesser standard quality spurious drugs, punishable under Section 27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. The complaints were filed against the manufacturing company represented by its Managing Partner and Partner, Manufacturing Chemist and Analytical Chemist of the manufacturing company and whole sale dealer and Retailer, arraying them as A1 to A7.

(3.) BOTH the petitioners have claimed protection under Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which says a person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for contravention of Section 18 if he proves (a) that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of that section; and (c) that the drug or cosmetic, while in his possession was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it.