ORDER :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C. No. 9161 of 2010 pending on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioners herein.

1. These Criminal Original Petitions had been filed by A2 (Crl. O.P. No. 4419 of 2017), A1 and A3 (Crl. O.P. No. 4420 of 2017) and A4 and A5 (Crl. O.P. No. 4595 of 2017) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to interfere with further proceedings and to quash C.C. No. 9161 of 2010 pending on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, insofar as the said petitioners/accused are concerned.

2. A1 and A4 are M/s. Cipla Ltd. at Goa and Maharastra, A3 and A5 are the Authorized Signatory of M/s. Cipla Ltd. and A2 is a Chairman and Managing Director of the said Company.

3. M/s. Cipla Ltd. was founded in the year 1935 by the father of A2 and is claimed to be one of the largest Pharmaceutical company in India. They had received approval/permission dated 10.02.2006 to manufacture Oseltamavir Capsules 75 mgs (ANTIFLU) tablet for domestic use and also for export purposes. The labels of the drugs which are meant for domestic use and which are meant for export purposes would vary though the tablets would be the same.

4. The Company/A1 manufactured the said drug, ANTIFLU tablets in Batch No. X90430 for export purposes. The 6th accused who is not a party before this Court, Navkar Agencies had ordered the said batch of ANTIFLU tablets for export to Mexico, USA and Singapore. A1 therefore supplied the said tablets for export purposes to A6, Navkar Agencies. However, instead of directly exporting the drugs, A6 had supplied the said drugs to A8 company/Euphoria Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., who again supplied them for export to A10 company/TDP Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

5. The respondent, Senior Drugs Inspector, in the office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Chennai, inspected TDP Technologies Pvt. Ltd. A10 and found the said ANTIFLU tablets meant for export, stored in that place. They seized the said tablets. They then issued show cause notices to all the accused claiming violation of Section 18(a) r/w Section 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 r/w Rules 94(b) and 96(iv) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, punishable under Section 27(d) of the said Act for selling Batch No. X90430, which was meant for export alone.

6. It must be pointed out that replies had also been given to the said show cause notices by the petitioners/A1 to A5. However, sanction to launch prosecution was granted on 14.07.2010 by the office of the Director of Drug Controller Tamil Nadu Chennai and subsequently, a complaint had also been lodged for contravention of aforesaid provision and which complaint had been taken cognizance as C.C. No. 9161 of 2010 by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Seeking to quash the said Calendar Case insofar as the present petitioners/A1 to A5 are concerned the present Criminal Original Petitions had been filed.

7. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel and also by Mr. Sivanantharaj learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. E. Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

8. Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Senior Counsel focused his arguments on two points namely, that both the Sanction Authority and also the Magistrate while taking cognizance had not considered the fact that comprehensive and detailed replies had been given by the present petitioners herein to the show cause notice issued. The learned Senior Counsel lamented that there was only a cursory reference in the sanction order and in the complaint to the said replies and pointed out that had the replies been considered in their true spirit, it could have been evident that the drugs had actually been supplied for export purposes to Navkar Agencies/A6 and thereafter, the petitioners/A1 to A5 had no further control over the movement of the said drugs. It was not to th