Telangana High Court
K.Rama Devi vs State Of Telangana Another on 31 October, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10723 of 2016
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/A3 seeking quashment of C.C.No.499 of 2015 filed by the Drug Inspector, Medchal Zone alleging that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, "the Act") and liable for punishment under Section 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act.
2. The facts in brief as per the complaint filed by the de- facto complainant are that A1/M/s. concord Drugs Limited is a manufacturing company situated at Sy.No.249 of Brahmanapally Village, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District represented by A2/Managing Director. A1 company manufactures drug Cloper Injection (Diclofenac sodium and Paracetamol Injection 3 ml ampouls Batch No.CPR- 0601, marketed by M/s. Beulah Biomedics Limited and the said drug was manufactured for sale without having product manufacturing license. Petitioner/A3 by name K. Rama Devi is the Proprietor-cum-competent person of the firm M/s. Beulah Biomedics, situated in Sy.No.588, Kapra. 2
3. On credible information, the de-facto complainant/drug inspector inspected the premises on 29.01.2013 belonging to the petitioner/A3, which is M/s. Beulah Biomedics, where the petitioner/A3 was found. The de-facto complainant has found the petitioner/A3 has stocked the drug Clopar Injection in a quantity of 12,840x3ml ampoules manufactured by A1 as per invoices No.132 dated 07.10.2010, invoice No.65 dated 24.07.2012 and invoice No.159 dated 08.11.2012. The de-facto complainant has asked the petitioner/A3 to provide the license copy of A1 company for manufacturing the drug Clopar injection, but the petitioner failed to furnish the license of A1 company to manufacture the drug. Since the petitioner/A3 has failed to provide the license details of A1 company, the drug inspector has freezed the drug Clopar Injection for a quantity of 12,840x3ml ampoules vide Form 15, dated 29.01.2013.
4. On the very same day, the de-facto complainant lifted the drug, which was seized by following the procedure. On 31.01.2013, the de-facto complainant along with the drug inspectors LWs.3, 6 and 7 inspected A1 firm and on the 3 very same day the de-facto complainant addressed letter to A2 to furnish the drug license for manufacturing the sale of subject drug. On 31.01.2013, A2 representing A1 company gave reply that he has supplied Clopar injection to M/s. Beulah Biomedics vide invoice Nos.132, 65 and 159 dated 07.10.2010, 24.07.2012 and 08.11.2012 respectively to the petitioner/A3. A2 has failed to furnish the batch of manufacturing records. On 05.02.2013, the petitioner/A3 gave reply to the de-facto complainant stating that they purchased drug from A1 under invoices and furnished all the documents required. On 11.02.2013, again drug inspectors along with mediators inspected the petitioner's firm. On 12.02.2013, the drug inspector has completed the formalities required under Section 23(6) of the Act and issued notice to the petitioner/A3. On completion of entire investigation the drug inspector has filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate alleging that A1 and A2 found manufacturing for sale and distribution of the drug without manufacturing license and thereby contravened Section 18(c) of the Act punishable under Section 27(b((ii), whereas A3 purchased the drug from the 4 unlicensed manufacturer thereby contravened Section 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27(d) of the Act.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A3 has filed this petition seeking quashment on the following grounds:
a. The petitioner/A3 has been purchasing the drug for the last many years from A1. The petitioner has been doing business since 2008 and procuring drugs from 31.03.2009 and originally A1 has handed over copy of the manufacturing license to the petitioner confirming that Clopar Injection is having manufacturing license and the petitioner is not aware whether the said license for manufacturing of the said drug was renewed by the authorities.
b. A1 represented by A2 addressed letter dated 31.01.2013 to the Drugs Inspector undertaking the responsibility of the day to day affairs and conduct of A1 company and he has also mentioned in the letter that the subject drug Clopar Injection was sold to the petitioner concern and A1 was holding a license bearing No.01/RR/AP/98/F/R which was valid up to 31.12.2011 5 and subsequently they have applied for its renewal. It is also stated that the subject batch drug was not approved by the licensing authority and thereby the A1 represented by A2 has taken the responsibility upon himself and thereby the petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability. It is mentioned further that the petitioner is not aware that the drug is not having license to manufacture and the petitioner has not contravened any provisions of the Act and thereby she cannot be punished under Section 27(d) of the Act.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.499 of 2015 can be quashed?
8. On perusal of the complaint and also the contents of this petition seeking quashment, it is clear that there is no much dispute with regard to the facts of the case as put forth by the de-facto complainant. According to the de- facto complainant, M/s. Beulah Biomedics of the petitioner has been doing business from 27.02.2008 and the 6 petitioner has been purchasing the subject drug Clopar Injection from A1 company represented by A2 since 07.10.2010. The de-facto complainant has inspected the premises belong to the petitioner and found 12,840x3ml ampoules of quantity of the injection and the same was seized under the cover of panchanama when A3 has failed to produce the license of A1 for manufacturing the subject drug. A1 firm M/s. Concord Drugs Limited is possessing manufacturing license in Form-28 is valid up to 31.02.2011 and further renewed, but A1 firm did not possess valid drug licence for manufacture and sale of the subject drug. The subject drug Clopar Injection was not approved or permitted to A1 firm for manufacture and sale. A1 firm representing by A2 has addressed letter dated 31.01.2013 to the drug inspector that he had manufactured the subject drug without possessing valid drug license and confirmed the same to A3. So far as these aspects are concerned, there is no dispute even from the petitioner.
9. The case of the petitioner is that originally the petitioner/A3 has furnished the copy of the license of A1 to 7 manufacture the subject drug which was up to 31.02.2011 and it is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner is not aware of the fact that A1 represented by A2 was not having valid license for manufacture for sale of the subject drug.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the letter dated 31.01.2013 by A1 company represented by A2 in favour of respondent No.2/drug inspector, it is clearly mentioned that A2 is in-charge and responsible for the day to day affairs of A1 company and that he has manufactured the subject drug without having valid license and supplied the same to the petitioner/A3. It is stated that on the basis of the said letter, since A1 represented by A2 has taken whole responsibility of selling the drug to the petitioner/A3, the petitioner has to be exonerated.
11. As per the provisions of the Act, A1 company represented by A2 should not have manufacture the subject drug Clopar Injection for sale and even if it is manufactured it should not have sold to the petitioner/A3. Similarly, the petitioner/A3 who purchased the subject 8 drug from A1 and A2 should have confirmed at the time of every purchase whether A1 company represented by A2 was having valid license for manufacturing and sale of the subject drug.
12. In the case on hand, the petitioner appears to be innocent, because initially when she was shown with the licence given to A1 company for manufacture and sale of the injection, however, that was expired and was not renewed. The main accused here is the manufacture who should not have sold the drug without valid license to the petitioner. However, law will not excuse on the ground that the petitioner is innocent. It is not the fact that the petitioner is not aware of the rules. The contents of this petition would go to show that the petitioner is aware of the fact that without having proper license manufacturing and sale of the subject drug, A1 company should not have manufactured the drug and that the petitioner also should not sell the drug, if it is manufactured without any license.
13. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the extraordinary 9 powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can be invoked.
14. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case uninfluenced by the observations and comments made by this Court in this order on merits of the case and dispose of the main case as quickly as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 31.10.2022 ES