P LAXMAN RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. P.Venkateswarlu, Drug Inspector, Warangal, filed a complaint under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act), alleging that petitioners 1 to 5 who are the partners and the 6th petitioner who is the competent person in respect of M/s. Laxmi Medical Distributors, which holds a wholesale drug licence to deal in drug formulations etc., supplied drug (Leukoplast Adhesive Tapes) to C.K.M. Government Maternity Hospital at a rate more than the rate printed thereon by scratching the price of Rs.360/- inclusive of all taxes and by pasting a price tag of Rs.910/- plustaxes and collected Rs.998-30ps i.e., Rs.638-30 more per piece, and thus violated para-18 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1987 (for short 'the Order'), and hence are liable for punishment under Section 7 of the Act. The said complaint was taken cognizance of as C.C.No.6 of 1994 by the learned Sessions Judge, Warangal. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. against the petitioner.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since only officers of Vigilance Cell established by the State Government to detect and prevent violations of the provisions of the Act and the various orders made thereunder, the officers of Vigilance Cell only,but not Drug Inspector, is competent to file the complaint for violation if any of the provisions of the Order, made punishable under the Act, and for that reason only the proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. It is his contention that the Drug Inspector who is appointed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, can only discharge the duties prescribed by that Act but has no power or authority to encroach upon the duties of the officials of Vigilance Cell and file complaints for violation if any of the provisions of the order. It is his contention that though Section 11 of the Act empowers a 'Public Servant' as defined in Section 21 IPC to file a complaint under the Act, that 'Public Servant' has to have some connection with the enforcement of the provisions of the Act and so all 'Public Servants' who draw salary from the Government cannot file complaints under the Act. He contends that an employee or officer of this Court who can be termed as a 'Public Servant' under Section 21 IPC cannot by avoiding duty entrusted to them file a complaint under the Act, for violation of the provisions of the Orders and so Mr. P. Venkateswarlu, the Drug Inspector, who is expected to perform the duties entrusted to him as per the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, only has no power or authority to file complaint against the petitioners for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Order. He relied on the note at the beginning of the Chapter II in the 'Law of Crimes' (3rd Edition) by Ejaj Ahmed, reading-

(3.) By virtue of the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O.Rt.No.49 Health, Medical and Family Welfare Dept., dated 9-1-1992 appointed eight persons, including Mr.P. Venkateswarlu, to be the Drug Inspectors in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said Mr. P. Venkateswarlu is cited as L.W.1 in the C.C.