The petitioner contravened Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by stocking and selling drugs without a license. The petitioner is liable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.7135 of 2018 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the petitioner.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7135 of 2018 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (herein after called as “the Act”) as against the petitioner.

2. The respondent filed complaint as against the petitioner for the contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act, punishable for the offences under Section 22(b)(ii) of the Act. On receipt of the complaint forwarded by the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai-6, the respondent inspected the premises of Skin and Bones Clinic and situated at No.87, Red Hills Road (North), Villivakkam, Chennai-49, in the presence of the petitioner and noticed that the certain facts and deviations. The petitioner was found stocked the drugs for sale without holding any drugs licence. The petitioner had also stocked the drugs for sale without holding drugs licence. The petitioner had also sold drugs without holding drugs licence under sales bills. Therefore, the petitioner is contravened under Section 18(c) of the Act for having stoked for sale and sold drugs without holding drugs licence.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 05.07.2016 and submitted her detailed explanation. However, it was found unsatisfactory and filed the present impugned complaint. The petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor and Civil Surgeon at Royapettah Medical College, Chennai and she can do her practice in medicine and she is entitled to dispense with medicine to her patient and as such, she cannot be prosecuted under Section 21(b)(ii) of the Act. The Rule No.6.3 of the Medical Counsel of India Rules enable the doctor to cause dispense of medicine to their own patients. Mere possession of bills does not mean that the petitioner is selling the medicines in the open separate counter. In fact, the respondent failed to examine any private witnesses to prove that the petitioner is selling medicines to general public. Therefore, mere possession of drugs cannot mulct criminal liability upon the petitioner.

3.1. He further submitted that at the time of inspection, the respondent failed to follow any mandatory provisions with the preparation of Form 17, while making search. Further while according sanction, the sanctioning authority failed to apply its mind and without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner.

3.3. He also submitted that the drugs specified in Schedule “K” shall be exempted from the provisions of the Chapter IV of the Act and the Rules made thereunder in that Schedule. The offence as alleged by the respondent fell under the Chapter IV of the Act. He also pointed out that under Schedule “K” Item 5 provides that the drugs supplied by a registered medical practitioner to his own patient or any other drug specified in Schedule “C” supplied by a registered medical practitioner at the request of another such practitioner if it is specially prepared with reference to the condition and for the use of an individual patient provided the registered medical practitioner is not (a) keeping an open shop or (b) selling across the counter or (c) engaged in the importation, manufacture, distribution or sale of drugs in India to a degree which render him liable to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act and the Rules thereunder. Hence he prayed for quashment of the proceedings.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) filed counte