P SUKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has been arrayed as A6 in this case on the basis of the complaint preferred by the respondent herein for the alleged offences under Sections 18(a)(i) read with 17B(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which is punishable under section 27(c) of the said Act and under section 18(a)(i) of the Act which is punishable under section 27(d) of the said Act, has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings pending in C.C.No,577 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.

(2.) MR.V.Rajamohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been implicated as A6 and he is a licensed Shop Owner namely M/s.Sukumar Medicals situated at Krishnagiri. It is submitted that the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's shop was inspected by the Senior Drug Inspector, Salem II Range and the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Salem Zone on 17.2.2004 and on verification, it was found that the petitioner has purchased 20x20x10's Teenmox capsules which is manufactured by A1 under Invoice No,212 dated 29.12.2003.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is admittedly a licensed Shop Owner and he is not the manufacturer of the alleged spurious drugs. Further in the complaint, there is no allegation that the petitioner had the knowledge about the contravention of the provisions under the Act or he is aware that the drugs are spurious and not of standard quality. Therefore it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to the protection provided under section 19(3) of the Act. IT is submitted that the petitioner during the time of inspection and search also provided the details of the manufacturer as per the provisions under section 18A of the Act. The learned counsel would further submit that even to the show cause notice, the petitioner/A6 has given an explanation to the effect that he is only a licensed Shop Owner and he has purchased the drugs from A1 who is a licensed manufacturer and he has no knowledge that the drugs are of spurious and not of standard quality. Therefore it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would be of clear case of abuse of process of Court and as such the proceedings is liable to be quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.