The absence of a manufacturing company as a party does not invalidate proceedings against sellers of drugs without a license, and jurisdictional issues raised by the defendants were ineffective due to their prior participation.

ORDER :

S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. The petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in S.C. No.31 of 2024 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, registered for the offence under Sections 18 (c), 18A, 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Sections 27 (b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the Company which has manufactured the drug is not arrayed as a party to the impugned proceedings and therefore, there is no compliance of Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in the present case. He submits that the complaint is filed before the Court of Magistrate, which is not the jurisdictional Court to try the alleged offences. Therefore, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. He submits that the proceeding is of the year 2014 and nearly after ten years, the learned Magistrate has committed said case to the Court of jurisdictional Sessions Judge. Therefore, the right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated in the present case. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [2008 Crl.L.J. 3944]

4. Per contra, learned HCGP, who has opposed the petition, submits that the allegations against the petitioners is that they were selling drugs in their shop without license. Therefore, the Company which has manufactured the said drug is not necessary party to the impugned proceedings. She submits that, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to directly entertain the complaint unless the same is committed to it by the jurisdictional Court of Magistrate. Therefore, the complaint filed before the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate is maintainable. She submits that in view of Section 32 of the Act, learned Magistrate has subsequently committed the case to the Court of Jurisdictional Sessions Judge, which is the Special Court, for the purpose of Offences under Chapter-IV of the Act. The Special Court has now taken cognizance of the alleged offences and it is only at this juncture, the petitioners are before this Court. The judgment in the case of the Pankaj Kumar (supra) was rendered where there was an inordinate delay of eight years in completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet. Therefore, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case.

Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Petitioner No.1 is the Proprietor of a General Store known as M/s. Chaitanya General Stores and petitioner No.2 was working and was in charge of the said store on 17.12.2012, when the Jurisdictional Inspector of Drugs had visited and inspected the said store. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had sold two drugs namely lomofen tablets and eldoper capsules by receiving requisite cost of the said drug without possessing valid licence and it is under these circumstances, a complaint as provided under Section 32 of the Act was filed by the Jurisdictional Drug Inspector against the petitioners.

6. Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as follows:

“32. Cognizance of offences. — (1) No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by—

(a) an Inspector; or

(b) any gazetted officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government by a general or special order made