ORDER : 

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Both the petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.46 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, thereby taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as against the petitioners.

2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29757 of 2022 is arrayed as the fourth accused and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.29758 of 2022 is arrayed as the first accused. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent had inspected the first accused company on 30.07.2017 and observed that the first accused has been granted with drug license in Form 20 & 21 dated 19.01.2015 valid up to 18.01.2020. During the inspection, the purchase and sale of schedule H and other drugs were verified and the respondent found the following contravention:-

(i) Supply of the drugs by way of retail on the prescription of the registered practitioner were not recorded at the time of supply in the prescription register specially maintained for the purpose and it is not continuously signed by the endorsed registered pharmacist from 01.03.2016 to 30.03.2017. Further, name of the prescriber and patient is mentioned but the address of the prescriber, patient is not mentioned in the prescription register. Therefore, it is in contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act r/w 65(3)(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

(ii) Further the supply of drugs by way of wholesale was made against cash or credit memo in which the name of the manufacturer is not mentioned, Drug license number of the licensee to whom the drugs were sold is incorrectly mentioned as listed in Table-I and it is in contravention under Section 18(c) of the Act r/w. Rule 65(5)(1) of the Rules, which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.

3. As per the inspection report, the accused was issued with show cause notice for the above contraventions. On receipt of the same, the accused by reply dated 28.07.2017 had stated that the first accused had taken immediate correction by maintaining the prescription register and the sale invoices produced at the time of inspection were reviewed as part of response to reported contravention. It was further stated that during verification, it is observed that there was typographic error in writing the license number and as such the errors have been corrected on immediate basis for future supplies.

4. However, without being satisfied by the reply, the respondent initiated prosecution for the contravention under Section 18(c) of the Act r/w Rules 65(3)(1), 65(5)(1) of the Rules, punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. The trial Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.46 of 2019 and issued summons to the accused. To quash the said proceedings the petitioners filed the present criminal petition.

5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the fourth accused and other learned counsel appearing for the first accused submitted that the fourth accused cannot be held responsible for the day to day affairs of the first accused company, since there is no specific averments to attract any charge as against the accused persons. As per Section 32(2) of the Act, no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Act. Now the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act and issued summons. The provision under Section 27(d) of the Act falls within the scope and ambit of Chapter IV of the Act. Therefore, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance on report filed by the respondent. The said error vitiate the entire trial as per Section 461 (k) & (l) of Cr.P.C., and it would also amount to illegality. Further the Trial Court had taken cognizance in a rubber stamp method without assigning any reason for taking cognizance. It is clear violation of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supr