Orissa High Court
Rahul Kumar Kyal vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 2 November, 2022
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.9798 of 2022
Rahul Kumar Kyal .... Petitioner
Mr. S.C. Mohapatra, Advocate
Mr. P.S. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. A. Pradhan, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
02.11.2022 Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner is an accused in G.R Case No.1168 of 2022, pending on the file of learned S.D.J.M. (S), Cuttack, arising out of Purighat P.S Case No.221 of 2022, for commission of the alleged offence under Sections 420/326/336/483/486/34 IPC and is in custody since 13.09.2022.
4. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack by order dated 30.09.2022 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a distributor of medicines and is an authorized person of M/s. V.R. Drugs Agencies, who have a licence issued by the Government of Orissa, Drugs Controller, Cuttack Circle-I, Page 1 of 5 Cuttack for sale/distribution of medicines on wholesale basis. Admittedly, such licence is valid till May 2027.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in course of regular business, he procured two medicines, namely, "TELMA AM" and "TELMA 40" from one M/s. Balaji Agencies, Bangalore, who is stated to have been an authorized Drugs Distributor (Super Stockist) as per the Licensing Authority, Bangalore.
7. It is stated that the Petitioner as the authorized representative of the Firm have been procuring drugs from the above M/s. Balaji Agencies on regular basis.
8. On receiving complaint regarding efficacy of working of the said medicines "TELMA AM" and "TELMA 40", which are stated to be used to regulate blood pressure, procured from the said M/s. Balaji Agencies, Bangalore, the Petitioner himself made a complaint to the I.I.C., Purighat, Cuttack on 12.09.2022. 8(A). It is submitted that later on getting complaint regarding the drugs, referred to above, as spurious, the case at hand was instituted at the instance of the Drugs Inspector, Odisha, Cuttack-I Range, Cuttack.
8(B). In the said FIR, the present Petitioner has been cited as an accused for selling, stocking and distribution of deemed spurious drugs, which are referred to hereinabove, as spurious drugs and claiming to be manufactured by M/s. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Sikkim.
8(C). It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instruction, that since the Petitioner has purchased the drugs from the super stockist whose name appears in the website of Page 2 of 5 the Directorate of Drugs Controller, Bangalore, Karnataka, he cannot be made liable, if the same are found to be spurious. 8(D). It is further submitted that his bona fides are amplified as he himself has lodged a complaint on 12.09.2022 before the I.I.C., Purighat Police Station in the said regard. It is stated that Petitioner is in custody since 13.09.2022 and has actively cooperated with the ongoing investigation. And, he was also taken on remand. 8(E). Hence, his further continuance in custody is unwarranted taking into account the role ascribed to the present Petitioner also in view of arrest of the super stockist from whom the drugs alleged to be spurious were procured.
9. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. Pradhan, on instruction, submits that the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he is a victim of circumstance is farfetched as admittedly the Petitioner is a regular distributor of drugs.
10. So, it militates against commonsense that he has obtained drugs from the distributor (super stockist) of Bangalore without any barcode. It is also submitted that on inquiry, it has come to fore that the Firm from which the Petitioner has obtained the drugs have been found to be fake. Hence, it is submitted that as the investigation is continuing releasing the Petitioner at this stage would affect the ongoing investigation. The written instruction as received by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel is taken on record.
11. On enquiry regarding system of distribution of drugs, it is stated at the Bar that once drugs are manufactured, the manufacturer delivers the same to C&F agent, who in turn, hands them over to the super stockist. The super stockist then delivers it to the distributor. From the distributor, the retailers procure the drugs and from the retailers, the common man normally purchases over Page 3 of 5 the counter. If such chain of distribution of stock is taken into account, there is no scope for a distributor/stockist like the present Petitioner at the first instance to know that the drugs in question are spurious or not.
12. In the present case, the Petitioner as a stockist has obtained the drugs in question, which are found to be spurious from the super stockist whose name admittedly appeared in the website of Directorate of Drugs Control, Bangalore, Karnataka.
13. As such it cannot be said with certainty at this stage as being submitted by the learned counsel for the State, that the Petitioner has knowingly purchased the drugs for getting a higher margin.
14. Learned counsel for the State, on instruction, has stated that there has been no casualty because of the proactive steps taken by State Authorities and submitted that the same cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance.
15. Considering that the Petitioner is a local and has hearth and home within the jurisdiction of the Court in seisin and keeping in view that at the first instance, he himself tried to set the law into motion by making a complaint before the I.I.C., Purighat Police Station, Cuttack, this Court is persuaded to hold that further continuance of the Petitioner in custody is not warranted and hence directs the Petitioner to be released on bail on such terms to be fixed by the Court in seisin over the matter.
16. To allay the legitimate apprehension of the learned counsel for the State that releasing the Petitioner at this stage would affect the ongoing investigation additionally, it is directed that the Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Court in seisin over the matter without its express permission and shall Page 4 of 5 appear before the investigating agency on such date and time fixed by the learned Court in seisin and cooperate with the ongoing investigation till submission of final form.
17. In the event the Petitioner does not extend the desired cooperation, it shall be open to the Investigating Agency to seek variance of the order.
18. Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
19. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rule.
(V. NARASINGH) Judge PKS Page 5 of 5