IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
D. Nagarjun, J.
M/s. Pfizer Limited – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.4503 of 2019
Decided On : 19-10-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 - Section 7(a), 8, 3, (d) - Drug was seized - Quash proceedings - Criminal Petition is filed for quash of proceedings against petitioners – Held, If Anacin drug is used, it will give quick relief to pain only and label does not say that Anacin drug would give relief either to cold or to fever - Label is crystal clear that it will give relief not to fever but to pain, if it is associated with cold and fever - Therefore, on complete reading of label, it is clear that intention of manufacturer is not to make people believe that drug Anacin would give relief to fever but it will given relief to pain, if it is associated with cold and fever - Therefore, contention of complainant that label on Anacin Drug contravenes rules and provisions of Act is not convincing and thus, cannot be accepted - Court is of opinion that continuation of proceedings against petitioners in C.C. on file of learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate amounts to abuse of process of law - Proceedings against petitioners are hereby quashed - Criminal Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quash of the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.658 of 2018 on the file of learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Section 8 read with Section 3 (d) appended with S.No.19 of Schedule punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act (herein after will be referred as “the Act” in short.
2. The facts in brief as can be seen from the record available before this Court as per the Drug Inspector, Secunderabad Zone – Sales (FAC), Drugs Control Administration, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad, are as under:
a) On 30.08.2017 the Drug Inspector along with panch witnesses LWs 3 and 4 and LW2 went to the premises of M/s. Raja Rajeswari Medical and General Stores, D.No.11-3-266/15/3/1/2, Shop No.1, Ground Floor, Mahmoodguda, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. The said M/s. Raja Rajeswari Medical and General Stores is a partnership firm, wherein one of the partners Mrs.Sangam Hemalatha is holding drug license bearing No.246/HD/AP/2002/R in From 20 and 21 having validity upto 27.02.2021. On inspection, the de-facto complainant and other witnesses found a drug namely “Anacin (Acetaminophen and Caffeine tablets (USP)” stocked in a quantity of 14 x 10 tablets printed with an indication as “for Symptomatic relief from headache, body-ache, toothache and pain associated with cold and fever” which is a contravention of Section 3 (d) appended with S.No.19 of the Schedule of the Act. The said drug was seized having its batch No.620-07413S, Mfg.Date: 09/2016, Exp. Date: 08/2019, manufacture in India by: M/s. Pfizer Limited, the Capital – A Wing, 1802, 18th Floor, Plot No:C-70, G-Block, Bandra – Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 At Sirinagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh 520 007 (Mfg Lic.No:33/KR/AP/2003/F/CC(L) under the cover of seizure panchanama and obtained acknowledgment.
b) A letter dated 30.08.2017 was served to LW8 one of the partners of the firm with a request to disclose the source of supply of the drug. Simultaneously on 31.08.2017 as mandated under Section 8 (d) of the Act, the de-facto complainant has intimated about the seizure to the learned Magistrate concerned. On 01.09.2017, the de-facto complainant has addressed a letter to the Joint Director, Licensing and Controlling Authority, Drugs Control Administration, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad narrating the details of the seizure and other subsequent events.
c) On 11.09.2017 a reply was received vide Letter dated 11.09.2017 along with corresponding documents from LW5, wherein it was stated that LW5 is the Managing Partner and responsible for the day to day activities and Anacin Drug bearing batch No.620-07413S, Mfg.Date: 09/2016, Exp. Date: 08/2019, manufactured in India by: M/s. Pfizer Limited is purchased from M/s. Sunny Enterprises, D.No.10-363/6, Satyaraghavendra Nagar Colony, Neredmet X Road, Malkajgiri (M), Medchal District – 500 047 vide Bill No. CC5913 on 19.06.2017. On 14.09.2017 the de-facto complainant has addressed a letter to M/s. Sunny Enterprises with a request to confirm the sale of said batch of drug to M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswari Medical and General Stores, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. On 04.10.2017 the de-facto complainant has received a reply alogn with corresponding documents and it was mentioned that the said Anacin drug with bearing batch No.620-07413S, Mfg.Date: 09/2016, Exp. Date: 08/2019, manufactured in India by: M/s. Pfizer Limited is purchased from M/s.JOELS Pharma, Bhavani Nagar, Mallapur, Hyderabad – 76 vide bill No.5581 dated 06.06.2017.
d) On 11.10.2017 the de-facto complainant has addressed a letter dated 11.10.2017 to M/s. Pfizer Limited, C/o. Kanchan Logistics, Plot No.9, Block No.37, Autonagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District with a request to furnish the purchase and sale details of the
State of Karnataka v. Dr. R. M. K. Sivasubramanya Om
Smt. Kantirani Jaynarayan Mangal v. The State of Maharashtra
SupremeToday
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 tabl....
Conviction under drug regulation provisions requires proving non-compliance, highlighting the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's details for legal protection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent powers of the High Court should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence un....
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific allegations to establish vicarious liability and the importance of following mandatory provisions before launching prosecutio....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period for filing a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the consequen....
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.