IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Moloy Banerjee & Others – Appellants
Versus
The State Rep. by the Drugs Inspector, Chennai – Respondent
Criminal Original Petition Nos. 30405 of 2022 & 3555 & 4396 of 2023 & all connected pending Crl.M.Ps.
Decided On : 10-07-2023
Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Contravention of Section 18(c) - Section 18(c), Section 27(d), Section 27(b)(ii), Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Paragraph 2 of Form 25, Condition No.3(ii) of Form 20B
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of contravening Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by selling drugs to a person not holding a requisite license. The respondent filed a criminal complaint against them, alleging violation of the Act, Rules, and license conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners did not contravene any provisions of the Act, Rules, or license conditions. It held that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of court and quashed the proceedings against them.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners had contravened the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Rules, and license conditions by selling drugs to a person not holding a requisite license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules, and license conditions to determine that the petitioners had not violated any of these provisions. It emphasized that the respondent had not properly considered the petitioners' reply and that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of court.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.2571 of 2021 on the file of the Fourth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai only insofar as the petitioners were concerned, allowing all the criminal original petitions and closing all connected pending Crl.M.Ps.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the entire records pertaining to C.C.No.2571 of 2021 on the file of the Fourth Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same with respect to the petitioners.)
1. These criminal original petitions have been filed by A4, A7 and A6 respectively to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2571 of 2021 on the file of the Fourth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The respondent herein initiated proceedings by filing a criminal complaint against seven accused persons for contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the Act) punishable under Section 27(d) and Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act.
3. The allegations made in the said complaint are as follows:
(i) On 30.1.2018, an inspection was conducted by the Drugs Inspector concerned in the premises of M/s.Oxaid (India) Gases (P) Limited situated at Royapettah, Chennai-14 and on enquiry, it was observed that the said company was not holding a drug licence for purchase and sale of drugs. On further verification of the relevant records, it was noticed that the said company was purchasing Oxygen IP and Nitrous Oxide from M/s.Linde India Limited, Kanchipuram and Oxygen IP from M/s.TN Oxygen (P) Limited, Ambattur, Chennai-95 and selling them to various hospitals. It was, therefore, prima facie concluded that there was a contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act for having stocked for sale/distribution without holding a valid licence.
(ii) The further allegation that has been made in the complaint was that the Managing Director of M/s.Oxaid (India) Gases (P) Limited admitted the contravention under the Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the conditions of licence. The main purport of the allegation made against the petitioners herein was to the effect that they had sold the drugs to a person not holding a requisite licence.
(iii) On receipt of the show cause notice, M/s.Linde India Limited gave reply dated 12.11.2019 along with all the relevant documents. Similarly, M/s.TN Oxygen (P) Limited gave a reply dated 12.12.2019 along with all the relevant documents. A detailed report was collected from the Drugs Inspector and the Authority concerned came to the conclusion that an offence has been committed by the accused persons under the relevant provisions of the Act, the Rules framed thereunder and the conditions of licence and accordingly, the private complaint came to be filed against seven accused persons. As stated above, A4, A7 and A6 alone have challenged the complaint in these criminal original petitions.
4. Heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, it has been stated in the complaint that they contravened the provisions of Section 18(c) of the Act read with Paragraph 2 of Form 25 read with Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short, the Rules) and the conditions of licence under Form 20B and particularly condition No.3(ii) for having sold the drugs to a person not holding the requisite licence to sell, stock or exhibit for sale.
7. Section 18(c) of the Act deals with possessing of licence for manufacture, sale, distribution, etc., of any drug. The definition of the term ''drug'' under Section 3(b) will include even devices intended for internal or external use in the diagnosis, treatment of disease or disorder in human beings and it will take within its fold Oxygen IP and Nitrous Oxide.
8. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that M/s.Oxiad (India) Gases (P) Limited had purchased these drugs from M/s.Linde India Limited and M/s.TN Oxygen (P) Limited and supplied them to hospitals. Even in the reply t
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused did not contravene the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Rules, or license conditions, and the continuation of crimina....
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.
Licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are deemed valid if renewal applications are timely and fees are paid, negating the ground for prosecution.
Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – Order of Magistrate summoning accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to facts of the case and law applicable thereto – Magistr....
Engaging in drug distribution without a valid license constitutes a criminal offense under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Distributors of drugs are not liable for quality issues if they prove acquisition from a licensed manufacturer and proper storage, as per Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The conviction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires proof of sale or stocking of drugs without a valid license, and procedural compliance in investigations is crucial for upholding such convict....
Failure to furnish information under Drugs and Cosmetics Act within stipulated time constitutes offence under Section 28A r/w 18B, even post-subsequent compliance. License violation and commercial co....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.