Back
V. SUJATHA
A. K. Kothari – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 6 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam for the offences punishable under Section 18 (a) (i) and 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, as part of joint raids of CBI and Drugs Control Administration, Visakhapatnam, on 17.05.2010, the complainant i.e., the Drugs Inspector, Drugs Control Administration, Visakhapatnam, has picked up sample of Pantolup 40, (Pantaprazole Tablets) Batch No.005F9AGX manufactured by M/s. Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (accused No.1) along with other drugs by following Section 23 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 from M/s Medical Stores, East Coast Railway Divisional Hospital, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam. The sample was stated to have been stored at appropriate storage conditions. One sealed portion of the said sample was sent to the Director, Central Drugs laboratory, Kolkata, dated 17.05.2010 for analysis. The Government Analyst, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata vide report dated 27.08.2010 has declare
Distributors of drugs are not liable for quality issues if they prove acquisition from a licensed manufacturer and proper storage, as per Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Provisions of Section 34 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act are also applicable to a partnership firm.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving proper storage conditions to avoid liability for contravention of Section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The petitioner contravened Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by stocking and selling drugs without a license. The petitioner is liable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act.
A stockist cannot be held liable for drug quality violations if not impleaded in the prosecution, highlighting the necessity of prosecuting the manufacturer under the relevant legal framework.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent powers of the High Court should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
