VINTA PRASAD REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 60/1998 on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that the Drugs Inspector, Zone-I, Vijayawada, inspected the wholesale pharmaceutical firm-M/s. Sai International, and picked up samples of Amoxycillin Capsules I.P. 250 mg., and Ampicillin 500 (Ampicillin capsules IP 500 mg.) manufactured by M/s. Hicks Pharma-2nd respondent, for the purpose of analysis, that he forwarded the samples on 29-5-1997 to the Government Analyst and Director, Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, that the Analyst gave a report after analysis that the samples were not of standard quality and they did not conform to the I.P. with respect to the contents of Amoxycillin and Ampicillin, that thereafter the Drugs Inspector forwarded the signed copy of Form-13 reports to Sri A. Venkateswara Rao, Proprietor of Sai International, to disclose the source of supply of the said drugs, that Sri Venkateswara Rao informed the Drugs Inspector that he purchased the said drugs from the 2nd respondent vide invoices No. 003/1996-97, dated 28-5-1996, and 006/96-97, dated 7-7-1996, respectively, that thereafter the Drugs Inspector forwarded Form-13 reports and sealed portions of the samples to the 2nd respondent requesting it to confirm the supplies made to Sai International on 19-9-1997, that the Drug Inspector received confirmation from the 2nd respondent of sale of the said drugs to Sai International, that thereafter the Drug Inspector obtained the requisite sanction and seized the balance stock on 11-11-1997, and that thereafter he filed the complaint against the petitioners for offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 17-B(d) punishable under Section27(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (for brevity, 'the Act').

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the loan license shows that the expert staff, namely technical staff of M/s. Rossvel Pharmaceuticals shall have to manufacture the durgs and that A2-2nd petitioner is authorized to sell the drugs by way of wholesale dealings by the loan licensee and store for sale of the drugs manufactured by Rossvel Pharmaceuticals, that the 2nd petitioner being a distributor cannot be prosecuted and, hence, the prosecution is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that A-1, on behalf of A-2-firm, manufactured and sold the drugs in question to Athakuri Venkateswara Rao, proprietor of Sai International, from where the samples of the drugs in question were picked up for analysis, that after analysis the Analyst found the drugs to be spurious within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 17-B of the Act, and that at this stage there is no material to show that the drugs in question were manufactured by Rossvel Pharmaceuticals and the material filed by the Prosecution prima facie make out a case for an offence punishable under Section 27(c) of the Act and hence the petition should be dismissed.