O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quash the proceedings against the petitioners in P.R.C.No.9 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Prohibition and Excise Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Basing on the complaint filed made by the complainant/2nd respondent, under section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 [herein referred as ‘the Act’], the Prohibition and Excise Magistrate, Kakinada taken cognizance of the case in P.R.C.No.09 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 18(a) (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, punishable under Section 27(d) of the same Act. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused No.1 and 2.

4. The allegations in the complaint in brief are that on 06.06.2018 the complainant/2nd respondent inspected the Primary Health Centre, Karapa, East Godavari District and taken subject drug- Ondansetron 4 mg tablets, Batch No.SHLT-2356, Mfg. dt. Nov 2017, Exp.Dt.Oct-2019, manufactured by the 1st petitioner /A1 firm, along with another drug, for test/analysis from the Main Stores, Primary Health Center, Karapa East Godavari District under Form-17 dated 06.06.2018 and Form 17A dated 06.06.2018 duly following the procedure laid down under Section 23 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The same was sent to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada; on 02.11.2018 received the test/analytical report from the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada declaring said drug as ‘Not of Standard Quality’, for the reason that “the sample fails in test for Uniformity of Content as per IP-2014.”

5. On 19.01.2019 the complainant addressed a letter to the 1st petitioner/A1 Firm, requesting to furnish certain information and certified copies as per Section 18-B and Section 22(1) (cca) of the Act and also made a reminder on 26.02.2019 for the same. On 29.04.2019, on receipt of reply, dated 24.04.2019 from the Managing Director, APMSIDC, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Mangalagiri, Amaravathi confirming the procurement of the subject drug from the 1st petitioner-Firm, and supply of the same to Central Medicine Store, APMSIDC, Kakinada, the complainant deposited one sealed portion containing 1x5x10 tablets of the subject drug, before the Court of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada as per the provisions of Section 23(4) (ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and also filed petition under section 25(4) of the said Act, for sending the deposited sample portion of the subject drug to Central Drug Laboratory, Kolakata as requested by 1st petitioner/A1 firm and the same was received by the court in CPR No.41/2019. On 26.07.2019 receipt of instructions from the Director General Drugs Control Administration, Guntur, addressed a letter to the 1st petitioner-firm, requesting to confirm the person responsible for day to day activities of their firm for the purpose of Section 34, 18- B and 22(1)(cca) of the Act, 1940 as on date of manufacturing of the subject drug- Not of Standard quality drug. Having obtained reply from the 1st petitioner firm, the 2nd petitioner being Managing Director of the said firm, the complainant filed the present complaint against the petitioners 1 and 2. Assailing the said complaint, present petition is filed.

6. The legal contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940, the Drug Inspector should be notified to particular area. In the instant case, no such notification has issued in the official Gazette either by the Central Government or by the State Government, appointing the complainant/2nd respondent as Inspector of that particular area.

7. Section 21 of the Act deals with Inspectors, which reads as follows:

“21. Inspectors.—

(1) The Central Government or a State Gov