A public servant's complaint is mandatory for prosecuting under Section 188 IPC, and the prosecution must prove intent and action for charges under Section 420 IPC.

ORDER :

T. Madhavi Devi, J.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.3037 of 2022 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar as against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

2. Brief facts are that respondent No.2 had complained that on 12.05.2021 at about 18.15 hours, the complainant along with patrol mobile-II staff was performing patrolling duty at Kothapet area and during the said process, they received credible information that two persons were selling Remdesivir Covid-19 emergency injections/medicines for higher price, i.e., each injection for an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the needy patients at Fruit Market, Kothapet, Chaitanyapuri and the same was informed to their superior officers and that the complainant secured two mediators and along with his staff rushed to the spot and caught accused 2 and 3 red-handedly with five Remdesivir injections and on enquiry, the accused revealed their names and on the instructions of accused 1 and 4, they were selling the above injections for an amount of Rs.20,000/- each to needy customers. Pursuant to the confession made by the accused, five Remdesivir and three mobile phones, i.e., three Remdesivir injections, I-Phone and One Plus phone from accused No.2 and two Remdesivir injections and one Vivo mobile phone from accused No.3 were seized. Thereafter, a crime under Sections 420 , 188 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 51B of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 was registered. It is submitted that thereafter, the official respondent filed charge sheet on 29.03.2022 reaffirming the above position. Seeking quashing of the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed by Accused No.3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/Accused No.3 was working as an Accountant in a Pharmaceutical Company and was found holding two vials of Remdesivir which act was not prohibited by any of the authorities and the complaint was also not given by a public servant under Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the allegation of the offence under Section 188 of IPC is not sustainable. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Pupala Srinadh Srinath Vs. The State of Telangana and another, Criminal Petition Nos.11371, 11374 and 11377 of 2022 dt.27.12.2022and also the case of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Jeevanandham and others Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District , [Crl.O.P.No.1356 of 2018 and batch dt.20.09.2018]

4. Further, in respect of applicability of Section 51B of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said provisions are not attracted to the case on hand as there were no prohibitory orders issued by any of the authorities, leave alone the State or the Central Governments. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Dr. Santosh Kumar Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others , [W.P.(Cr.)No.332 of 2020 dt.14.12.2020]

5. As regards the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not brought on record any evidence to show that the petitioner intended to sell the said injections or that the petitioner had entered into any agreement with any party at the price mentioned in the FIR. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner was possessing two vials of Remdesivir, if at all, it can only be presumed that the petitioner intended to sell the injections and having a mere intenti