AMIT GHARE Vs. STATE OF T.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respective sole petitioners i.e., Mr. Amit Ghare in Crl.P.No.1377 of 2017 is A.8 and Mr. Ashish Mallella in Crl.P.No.9767 of 2017 is A.9 are among the 12 accused in the PRC.No.32 of 2014, viz., A.1 is M/s. Celon Labs Limited, Hyderabad (for short 'Celon') represented by its MD Sri K.V.Ravindra, Hyderabad-A.2, A.3-M/s. Seven Pharma Labs Limited of Peru (local address at Venkatapuram, Khammam District), A.4-Bheemireddy Muralikrishna Reddy, Promotor of Seven Pharma, A.5-K.Rami Reddy, Director of Seven Pharma, Hyderabad, A.6-M/s. Alkem Laboratories Private Limited, Mumbai (for short 'Alkem Labs') represented by its MD BDN Singh-A.7, Mumbai, one Amith Ghare, Head International Business, Alkem Labs, Mumbai-A8 petitioner in Crl.P.No.1377 of 2017, Ashish Mallella, Assistant Manager, International Business Exports, Alkem Labs, Mumbai-A9, N.Veer Raju, QA Senior Executive of M/s Celon Labs as A.10, A.Venugopal Rao, employee of Intech Printing Press Private Limited, Kukatpally as A.11 and Vindogh Kumar Upadyaya, Vice President, Operations of M/s. Celon Labs at HyderabadA.12.

(2.) The PRC.No.32 of 2014 proceedings are outcome of the complaint of the Drugs Inspector, Balanagar Zone, Ranga Reddy District (respondent herein), filed before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Miyapur. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 32(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') for the violation of Section 17B(e) of the Act and the rules framed thereunder which violation stated punishable under Section 27(c) of the Act, by allotted the PRC.No.32 of 2014 to commit the case the Court of Sessions. The petitioners maintained the two petitions in seeking to Quash said cognizance order supra

(3.) The contentions which are common in both the petitions in seeking to quash the said proceedings impugning the complaint with 16 witnesses cited and 92 documents referred in the complaint from which cognizance taken against 12 accused for the offences among other supra are that, the accusation mentioned in the complaint so far as the accused concerned is for altering/re-labeling ALCLAV-625 mg tablets to ALCLAV-FC without license by violation of 17-B(e) of the Act and the Rules thereunder, A.6 & A.7 manufactured ALCLAV-625 mg without manufacturing license also liable for violation of Section 18(c) of the Act read with Rules, A.6 & A.7 violated Section 18(a)(vi) r/w license conditions in Form-28 Clause (3) r/w condition No.4 Clause (ii) of Form-21B of the Act and Rules thereunder and A.1 to A.5 stocked ALCLAV625 mg at unlicensed premises, violated Section 18(c) of the Act and the Rules made there under and the punishment provided respectively is under Sections 27(C), 27(b)(ii), 27(c) and 27(b)(ii) of the Act on the 4 counts supra, are unsustainable and no offences made out against them.