JUDGMENT (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.)

The petitioner, who is common in both the revisions, was tried for the offence under Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') in three separate cases, namely C.C.Nos. 35 and 34 of 1993 and 111 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli. Thetrial Court convicted him for various offences under the provisions of the Act and imposed different punishments, separately in the three cases. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed CrI.A.Nos. 79 and 80 of 1998 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, against the judgments in C.C.Nos. 35 and 34 of1993 respectively and CrI.A. No. 625 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, against the judgment in C.C.No. 111 of 1996. The criminal appeals were dismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed these two criminal revision cases, and Crl.R.C.No. 528 of 2002.

2. Crl. R.C. No. 528 of 2002 was heard by a learned Single Judge. Through the judgment, dated 31-03-2006, the learned Single Judge held that the prosecution did not even accuse the petitioner of manufacturing the drug in question and in that view of the matter, the initiation of prosecution against him is untenable. Accordingly, he allowed the revision and set aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner.

3. These two revisions were listed for hearing before another learned Single Jude. On 20-06-2007, the following order was passed:

"Both these revisions raise some important questions of law. Similar matter, in the case of the petitioner, has already been allowed by another Bench of this Court, which in my view needs reconsideration. Therefore, let both these revisions be placed before a Division Bench, after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice."

4. In view of this order, these two revisions are posted before a Division Bench.

5. Though no specific question or the subject matter of discussion is identified in the order of reference, we are of the view that the interpretation of Section 18 of the Act arises for consideration in the context of an allegation made against a dealer.

6. Mrs. Shanti Neelam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her client is not a manufacturer and, admittedly, he holds a licence of dealership. She contends that when the allegation is in relation to the sub-standard nature of the product or misbranding thereof, the only person that could have been proceeded against is the manufacturer and not the dealer.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that Section 18(c) of the Act takes in its fold not only the manufacturer, but also the dealer and when once it was found that the product dealt with by the petitioner was found to be sub-standard and was misbranded, the petitioner is liable to be punished. He contends that the judgments of the Courts below do not warrant any interference.

8. We proceed on the assumption that the prosecution proved the allegation that the sample drawn from the petitioner was found to be of sub-standard nature and was also misbranded. Sitting in a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. we cannot reappraise the evidence. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether a dealer can be prosecuted either for misbranding a product or for manufacturing of a sub-standard product.

9. Section 18 of the Act reads as under:

Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics:- From such date as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette in this behalf. no person shall himself or by any other person on this behalf:-

(a) Manufacture of sale (or for distribution), or sell, or stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute-

(i) any drug which is not of a standard quality, or is misbranded, adulterated or spurious;

(ii) any cosmetic which is not of a standard quality or is misbranded or spurious;

(iii) any patent or proprietary medicine, unless there is displayed i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document