SURESH KUMARJI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused Nos.l and 2 in C.C.No.381 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam. By filing this criminal petition, they invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) praying this Court to quash all the proceedings in the said calendar case on the ground that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be taken against them, the same would result in miscarriage of justice and amounts to abuse of process of law.

(2.) The petitioners are directors of M/s. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Private Limited, Nagpur which is accused No.3 in C.C. No.381 of 2003. The petitioners committed an offence under Section 3(d) read with schedule S.No.43 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, for brevity) punishable under Section 7 of the said Act. The complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector disclosed the following. The Drugs Inspector along with two others inspected the premises of M/s. Anand Ayurveda Medical Stores, Khammam, and found a drug 1x50 tab, Baidyanath Rheumartho Tab B.No.81 Mfg. date 12/2001 Mfg. by: M/s. Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhavan Ltd., Great Nag Road, Nagpur (Accused Firm) in the above sales premises. On enquiry, the shop owner informed that the drug is manufactured by M/s. Shri Ayurved Bhavan Private Limited. The drug in a plastic tin contains fifty tablets, which was given by the shop owner to the complainant for investigation. The plastic tin contains an indication that the tablets are intended for rheumatism for joint pains etc. As per Section 3(d) read with Serial No.43 of the Schedule of the Act. Any person taking any part in the publication of advertisement referring to a drug suggesting its use in any condition specified in the schedule would be contravening Section 3(d) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. As per the provisions of the Act, 'advertisement' includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other documents and any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting light, sound or smoke.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy submits that though Rheumartho tablets are manufactured by Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan, Nagpur, petitioners who are Directors of the said company cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 7 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act. According to the learned Counsel unless the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector discloses that director/directors are directly in-charge of day to day affairs of a company, the directors cannot be tried for the offences under the Act. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, (1981) 2 SCC 335; K.P. G. Nair v, M/s. Jindal Menthol India Ltd., 2000 (6) Scale 578; Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., (2002) 7 SCC-655, and Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2004 (6) Scale 507.