The main legal point established in the judgment is that intermediaries, as defined under the Information Technology Act, are exempt from liability for the actions of vendors/sellers using their platform, and the Court's decision was influenced by the exemption from liability for intermediaries under the Information Technology Act.

ORDER

1. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.102191 of 2021 being accused No.1 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.102201 of 2021 being accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them and pending in C.C.No.6652 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Hubballi, for the offences under Section 18(c) which is punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant-respondent is that, accused No.1 - Snapdeal is an online site owned and operated as a Company having its registered office at New Delhi, represented by accused Nos.2 and 3, engaged in shopping by providing platform for online marketing and selling of various consumer products. The drug by name SUHAGRA 100 tablets were displayed for sale in the said online site and same is being sold to various customers. Accused No.1 is the company doing business, accused Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors-cum-Promoters and Chief Executive Officer/Chief Operating Officer of accused No.1 and they are responsible for its day to day conduct of the business, as per the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of accused No.1. It is stated that a credible information was received regarding sale of drug - SUHAGRA tablets through online portal, without possessing valid drug license issued under the Act. CW2 carried out the investigation in this regard. CW5 placed an order for supply of the drugs through Snapdeal web portal and received the consignment on 19.12.2014. Similarly, CW3 also got SUHAGRA tablets through web portal. CW6 had also placed an order to get SUHAGRA drugs through Snapdeal web portal and had received the consignment on 17.04.2015. On enquiry with the Drugs Controller, Chandigarh it was revealed that the accused were not having valid license to deal with the drugs. A detailed investigation was undertaken by the complainant and it was found that accused No.1 is dealing with various items through its online site i.e., web portal www.snapdeal.com, without possessing any license under the provisions of the Act, but displayed, provided platform to exhibit and sell the drugs - SUHAGRA tablets and aided in commission of the Act. Thereby, committed the offence by violating Section 18(c), punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act and Rules there under.

3. Accused Nos.2 and 3 - the Directors-cum-Promoters and Chief Executive Officers/Chief Operating Officers of accused No.1 are responsible for the day to day conduct of the business of the said Company and they are responsible for providing platform to exhibit and sell the drugs in question without possessing valid license and they have also committed offences as stated above. It is stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 have also not disclosed source of acquisition of the said drugs and thereby violated Section 18A punishable under Section 28 of the Act. Therefore, the complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action.

4. On filing the private complaint by the public servant i.e., the Drugs Inspector, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act, registered criminal case in C.C.No.6652 of 2021 and issued summons to the accused vide order dated 02.08.2021, which is called in question before this Court by accused Nos.1 to 3 by filing two separate petitions and to quash the complaint filed by the complainant and the order dated 02.08.2021 passed by the Trial Court.

5. Heard Sri.C V Nagesh, learned senior counsel for Sri.S S Poovayya and Sri.Praveen Uppar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

6. Sri.C V Nagesh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant filed the private complaint alleging commission of the offence against accused Nos.1 to 6. The address mentioned in the private complaint discloses