The main legal point established is the validity of prosecution initiated by the Drugs Inspector under the Special Act and the need for regulation of online advertisements of drugs and medicinal tablets under the Special Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.6352 of 2016 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai – 600 006 and quash the same.

This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.2841 of 2016 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 016 and quash the same.)

Common Order

1. As petitioners and the issue involved in both the Criminal Original Petitions viz., Crl.O.P.Nos.4847 of 2017 and 27548 of 2016 are one and the same, by consent, they were taken up together and the submissions of the learned counsel on either sides were heard.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On September 2015, an advertisement has been published in the monthly magazine viz., “Health Choice”, Volume 8, Issue 9, Page 39 with respect of a drug “UTRAVIT-Syrup 200 ml” with the claim that the said drug is a remedy and cures “Menstrual disorders in women and Disease and Disorders of the uterus, Disorders of menstrual flows and Female diseases (in general)” “TAMIL” was noticed by the then Drugs Inspector within her jurisdiction, which is an objectionable advertisement as per Section 3(c) and Section 3(d) r/w.S1.Nos.12, 13 and 18 of the Schedule of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as “Special Act”].

(ii) On 09.09.2015, a show cause memo was sent to the Editor, “Health Choice”, M/s.Dharma Publications, for publishing the said objectionable advertisement which is in contravention of

(1) Section 3 (c) of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954.

(2) Section 3 (d) read with the Schedule under Sl.No.12 of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954.

(3) Section 3 (d) read with the Schedule under Sl.No.13 of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 and

(4) Section 3 (d) read with the Schedule under Sl.No.18 of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and the Editor was also requested to disclose the details of the advertising person.

(iii) A reply dated 15.10.2015 was received by the then Drugs Inspector, Arumbakkam Range i/c from the Editor, Health Choice, wherein, he has stated that the referred advertisement are all regarding Ayurvedic products which does not refer to any magic remedy or magic cure or has he tried to make a false claim or mislead to give a false impression regarding the true character of the products mentioned, but it referred only to the basic quality of the products and has not disclosed the details of the advertising person.

(iv) Thereafter, the then Drugs Inspector, Arumbakkam Range i/c. has sent a letter to the Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu, requesting for the permission to investigate at the premises of Dharma Publications [publisher of Health Choice Magazine], to proceed further with this investigation.

(v) On 22.06.2016, the respondent inspected the premises of Dharma Publications. During inspection, the respondent handed over the Reminder III dated 22.06.2016 to the Editor, Health Choice Magazine requesting him to disclose the details of the advertising person. But he has refused to receive the Reminder III dated 22.06.2016 and also refused to give the written statement about the constitution of the company.

(vi) The respondent sent a show cause memo to the manufacturing company M/s.Dharma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd., No.48, G.W.T. Road, opp. to Rajiv Gandhi Memorial, Sriperumbudhur – 602 105, Tamil Nadu, India, but received no reply. Further a reminder letter dated 19.07.2016 was also sent to above company, for which there was no reply either.

(vii) On 03.08.2016, the respondent submitted a detailed report to the Director of Drugs Control, Tamil Nadu Chennai-06 requesting to prosecute the petitioners and accordingly the sanction order was received on 29.08.2016 to prosecute