JUDGMENT :

(Prayer in both Crl.O.Ps.: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the criminal complaint bearing C.C.No. 2795 of 2016 filed by the respondent in the Hon’ble IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and the summons dated 02.08.2016 issued therein under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and order for issuing summons to the petitioner dated 18.07.2016 issued by the Ld. IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.)

1. Both these Petitions have been filed by A-3 in C.C.No. 2795 of 2016 now pending on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. Crl.O.P.No. 23409 of 2016 has been filed to call for the records and to quash the said calendar case. Crl.O.P.No. 23434 of 2016 has also been filed seeking to quash the calendar case in view of the fact that summons to the petitioner/A-3 had been issued by order dated 18.07.2016.

3. C.C.No. 2795 of 2016 had been taken cognizance on a complaint filed by the respondent/defacto complainant, Drug Inspector, Vadapalani Range, Office of the Assistant Director of the Drugs Control, Zone-II in Chennai, for contravention by the accused of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with the conditions of license as stated in condition 3(ii) of 20B Drugs and Cosmetics Act and punishable under Section 27(d) of the said Act.

4. The said complaint has been filed against four accused. A-1/ B. Sanjay Kumar was the Proprietor of M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises at Chennai. A-2 was M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., and represented by its Managing Director. A-3 is the petitioner herein, who had been shown as the Managing Director of A-2/M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd., and A4 was V.Krishnan, the power of attorney of M/s. Piramal Enterprises Limited, Chennai.

5. It had been alleged that Drug Inspectors, had inspected the premises of M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises on 04.08.2014 in the presence of A-1. M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises held license in Form 20-B valid upto 30.12.2013 and license in Form 21-B valid upto 16.10.2017. It was claimed that A-1 had not renewed the license in Form 20-B within a period of six months from the date of expiry of the license on 30.12.2013. It was therefore stated that the license was deemed to have expired under Rule 63 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. At that particular point of time, it was also found that M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises had stock for sale of Drugs other than those specified in Schedule -C, C-1 and X and those Drugs were also listed out in the complaint. It was claimed that those Drugs had been stated for sale and had also been sold without holding valid license in Form 20-B which was a contravention of Section 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. Necessary procedure for seizure of Drugs were undertaken by the Drugs Inspectors and they were also produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court. Samples were also taken. Show cause notice dated 30.10.2014 was issued to A-1. Subsequently, A-1 also obtained fresh license for Form B valid upto 24.08.2019. Thereafter, A-1 had also sought return of the Drugs and had filed necessary application before the Court and the Magistrate had also directed return of the Drugs to A-1.

6. On 24.11.2014, A-1 replied to the show cause notice and stated that he had purchased the listed Drugs from A-2/ M/s. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. It was therefore stated in the complaint that A-2 had also contravened Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with condition 3(ii) of license in Form 20B for having sold the Drugs to a person, who did not have requisite license. A memo dated 09.12.2014 was then sent to A-2. A reply was received on 19.12.2014 wherein further time was sought to give a detailed reply. A further reply dated 02.01.2015 was given by A-4, the power of attorney of A-2 and it was stated that they had been supplying Drugs to A-1 regularly from the year 2012 in the belief that A-1 had requisite license. It was stated that they did not violate an