Mere possession of drugs does not constitute an offense under section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Specific averments of the accused's responsibility for the company's conduct are necessary for a legally sustainable complaint.

1. The present criminal original petition has been filed to quash C.C.No.141 of 2012 on the file of the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and abuse of law.

2. Respondent herein has filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under section 27(b)(ii) of the said Act and Section 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under section 28 of the said Act. In the complaint, it has been alleged that the 1st petitioner is the company, petitioners 2 to 4 are the Directors of the Company and 5th petitioner is the Administrative Manager of the Company. As per the instructions of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Zone-III on 29.03.2010, Tmt.G.Ammukutty, Drugs Inspector, Ashok Nagar Range and R.Chitra, Drugs Inspector, Vadapalani Range, with the complainant inspected the premises of M/s.Tidal Laboratories Pvt.Ltd., Tital House, 14, Elliots Beach Road, North End, T.V.Nagar, II Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai-90.

3. During inspection, Thiru S.Arumugam, Person in-charge of the said firm was present and in his presence, the firm was inspected and it was noticed that the drugs were kept for sale and distribution without having a valid drug licence and hence, the first petitioner company has contravened the provisions of Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The available stocks of drugs were seized from the premises, as mentioned in the Annexure under Form 16 bearing No.13912 dated 29.03.2010 under a cover of Mahazar and prepared Mahazar list in the presence of two independent witnesses, viz., Sheik Fareed and J.Jayakumar. The copies of Form 16, Mahazar and Mahazar list were acknowledged by the Person in-charge, viz., Arumugam. The said Arumugam has given a voluntary written statement on the same day. On 30.03.2010, the seized properties of drugs were produced before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in M.P.No.873 of 2010 and obtained the order of safe custody from the said Court. On 05.04.2010, the 5th accused has given a voluntary statement. Therefore, by having stocked the drugs for sale without holding requisite drug licences, A1 to A5 have contravened section 18(c) of the Act. Hence, a show cause notice dated 06.04.2010 was issued by hand delivery alleging that they have contravened the provisions of section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for having stocked the drugs for sale/distribution without holding requisite drug licence and called for the petitioners to submit the particulars of the Directors and to disclose the names and addresses of the persons from whom they acquired the drugs, which were seized as per section 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioners submitted a reply on 12.04.2010 and the same found to be not satisfactory because the petitioners have not disclosed the names and addresses of the suppliers from whom they acquired the drugs. Hence, Tmt.Ammukutty, Drugs Inspector, Ashok Nagar Range, by a letter dated 31.05.2010, has handed over the entire file to the complainant for further investigation and submit a final report. Hence, on 26.04.2011, the complainant submitted a detailed report to the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai, seeking sanction to prosecute A1 to A5 for the above contravention.

4. On 24.06.2011, the complainant received sanction order issued from the Office of the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai dated 14.06.2011 and thereafter, necessary action was taken to prosecute the accused persons for the said contraventions. Therefore, a complaint was filed against the petitioners before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in C.C.No.141 of 2012 on 27.01.2012 for having stocked the drugs for sale without having requisite drug licence, which is punishable under section 27 (b)(ii) of the said Act and also for having not disclosed the names and addresses of the persons from whom they acquired the drugs