SAI VISHWAJEET SHAW Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.3037 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar as against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

(2.) Brief facts are that respondent No.2 had complained that on 12/5/2021 at about 18.15 hours, the complainant along with patrol mobile-II staff was performing patrolling duty at Kothapet area and during the said process, they received credible information that two persons were selling Remdesivir Covid-19 emergency injections/medicines for higher price, i.e., each injection for an amount of Rs.20,000.00 to the needy patients at Fruit Market, Kothapet, Chaitanyapuri and the same was informed to their superior officers and that the complainant secured two mediators and along with his staff rushed to the spot and caught accused 2 and 3 red-handedly with five Remdesivir injections and on enquiry, the accused revealed their names and on the instructions of accused 1 and 4, they were selling the above injections for an amount of Rs.20,000.00 each to needy customers. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, five Remdesivir and three mobile phones, i.e., three Remdesivir injections, I-Phone and One Plus phone from accused No.2 and two Remdesivir injections and one Vivo mobile phone from accused No.3 were seized. Thereafter, a crime under Ss. 420, 188 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 51B of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 was registered. It is submitted that thereafter, the official respondent filed charge sheet on 29/3/2022 reaffirming the above position. Seeking quashing of the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed by Accused No.3.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.3 was working as an Accountant in a Pharmaceutical Company and was found holding two vials of Remdesivir which act was not prohibited by any of the authorities and the complaint was also not given by a public servant under Sec. 195(1) of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the allegation of the offence under Sec. 188 of IPC is not sustainable. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pupala Srinadh Srinath Vs. The State of Telangana and another[Criminal Petition Nos.11371, 11374 and 11377 of 2022 dt.27/12/2022] and also the case of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District[Crl.O.P.No.1356 of 2018 and batch dt.20/9/2018].