IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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 declared the said sample as “Not of Standard Quality” for the reasons that the sample does not confirm to claim with respect to “Disintegration” test.

3. Thereupon, the complainant has issued 18-A notice to the Superintendent, East Coast Railway Divisional Hospital, Dondaparthy, Visakhapatnam, dated 09.09.2010 and requested the source of supply and other particulars pertaining to said drug. A reply was received from the Chief Medical Superintendent, East Coast Railway Hospital, vide letter dated 15.09.2010, stating that they purchased the said drug from M/s. Gandhi Agencies, near Glass & Glass, Mahatab road, Cuttack, Orissa State vide invoice dated 17.07.2009 and submitted attested copy of the purchase bill. Thereupon, the complainant requested the said M/s. Gandhi Agencies to disclose the source of supply of the drug to them. On receipt of information regarding the source of supply, it is disclosed that accused Nos.4 to 6 are the distributors of the drug. Accused No.1 firm was issued notices and though accused No.1 firm addressed letters dated 20.12.2010 and 29.01.2011, no documents as required under Section 18-B of the Act were enclosed therewith. After completion of necessary formalities and upon receipt of instructions from the Director General, Drugs and Copyright, DCA, dated 19.09.2008, to file a complaint in the Court of law, the complainant has filed the present complaint against accused No.1 firm, its whole-time Directors – A2 & A3, who are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company, and accused Nos.4 to 6, who are the distributors of the drug, for the offences punishable under Section 18 (a) (i) and 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and requested to dismiss the petition.

5. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapantam are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order in