Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Laxmi Medical Distributors, Rep. By Its ... vs State Of A.P. Rep. By Its P.P., High Court ... on 15 December, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ALD(CRI)808, 2005CRILJ1601
ORDER C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
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 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/- plus taxes 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 Drugs 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 Drugs 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 -
"This chapter is for the most part an elaborate interpretation clause. It is a key to the interpretation of whole Code. The leading terms are here defined and explained, and the meanings thus announced are steadily adhered to throughout the subsequent Chapters. Sir James Stephen suggests that the object of the Chapter is to prevent captious Judges from willfully misunderstanding the Code, and cunning criminals from evading its provisions. It does not provide explanations for all cases indiscriminately, but only for those cases where difficulty may arise, when it will be necessary to refer to this Chapter to see what the meaning of the Code is (Proceedings of Council (1860) P.1261)."
in support of his contention. His other contention is that since a special Court only can take cognizance of the offences under the Act, complaint filed before the Sessions Judge is liable to be quashed. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
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 09.01.1992 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.
4. By virtue of Section 21(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, every Inspector appointed by the Central or State Government shall be deemed to be a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and is officially subordinate to such authority as the Government appointing him may specify in that behalf. So, it is clear that P.Venkateshwarlu, who filed the complaint, which is registered as C.C., is a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Since Section 11 of the Act reads:
"No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a person who is a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code or any person aggrieved or any recognized consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not", any 'Public Servant', as defined in Section 21 IPC, is competent to make a complaint in writing disclosing the facts constituting the offence under the Act, and such complaint can be taken cognizance of by the Court. In view thereof the fact that a Vigilance Cell is constituted by the State Government to enforce compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Orders made thereunder, does not ipso facto take away the power vested in a 'public servant' by the Section 11 of the Act to file a complaint for violation of the provisions of the Act, which might not have been noticed by the Vigilance Cell.
6. In re the example given by the learned counsel it is to be stated that since Section 11 of the Act permits any 'Public Servant' as defined under Section 21 IPC to make a complaint, there can be no impediment for the Court taking cognizance of a complaint made in writing relating to the offences under the Act. For making such a complaint, if the 'public servant' concerned breaches some Standing Orders or the Rules framed, he has to suffer the consequences for such breach, but the complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the complaint is not filed by an Officer of the Vigilance Cell.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on some decisions which laid down the guide lines for finding out who can be said to be a 'Public Servant' as defined by Section 21 IPC. In my considered opinion, those decisions have no relevance for deciding this case, more so because in PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P. v. B.SUDHAKAR, 1988 CRI.L.J.1470 it is held that a 'Drug Inspector' can file a complaint under Section 11 of the Act for violation of the provisions of the Order. In that case, the Drug Inspector, Warangal, filed a complaint alleging that the proprietor of Sudha Medical Stores, sold 30 tablets of Ibugesic 400 mg for Rs.44-50 paise i.e. Rs.9-64 paise more than the price fixed and thereby contravened Clause 21 read with Clause 29 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1979, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Act. Relying on S.P.R.M. VITHAL AND OTHERS v. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, MACHILIPATNAM AND ANOTHER, 1987 (1) ALT 348, the said contention was repelled. The law laid down in those decisions squarely applies to the facts of this case and so it cannot be said that the Drug Inspector has no authority or power to file a complaint for contravention of the provisions of the order.
8. With regard to the other contention that the Sessions Judge, Warangal, is not a Special Court and so he cannot take cognizance of the offence, under the Act it should be stated that by virtue of the notification in ROC.No.523/SO/85 issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in modification of the notification dated 20th March, 1984, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 12(A) of the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, upon request made by the State Government, the District and Sessions Judges of East Godavari at Rajahmundry, West Godavari at Eluru, Guntur, Krishna, Visakhapatnam, Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Khammam, Nalgonda and Warangal districts were designated as Special Judges of their respective districts for the purpose of providing speedy trial of the cases under the Act. Therefore, it is clear that the Sessions Judge, Warangal, is the Special Judge empowered to try the offences under the Act.
9. For the above reasons, I find no merits in this petition and so the criminal petition is dismissed.