O R D E R:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.452 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa.

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 I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa taken cognizance of the case in C.C.No.452 of 2019 for the offences under sections 18(a) (i) read with Section 16 (1) (a) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused No.1 and 2.

4. The allegations in the complaint are that on 10.09.2018 the 2nd respondent inspected A.P.M.S.I.D.C. main stores, Opposite RIMS Police Station, Kadapa and collected samples of 4x 1x5x10 tablets of the Drug Glimepiride Tablets I.P. 1mg, B.No.:SHLT-2427, Mfg. dt:12/2017, Exp.dt.11/2019 manufactured by 1st accused firm along with other drugs, sent them for test/analysis as per the procedure laid down under Section 23 of the Act. The same was sent to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada and on 03.12.2018 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 sampled drug fails to meet the “Dissolution Test” as per Indian Pharmacopoeia (I.P.). On receipt of instructions from the Director General, Drugs Control Administration, Guntur, the complainant deposited the sealed sampled portion of the said drug in the court to send the drug to the central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. On 14.03.2019 on receipt of analytical report in Form-2, sent a notice along with the copy of the report to the accused firm and the complainant received reply on 25.03.2019 from the 1st accused firm. Assailing the said complaint, present petition is filed.

5. 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.

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

“21. Inspectors.—

(1) The Central Government or a State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.

(2) The powers which may be exercised by an Inspector and the duties which may be performed by him, the drugs or 2[classes of drugs or cosmetics or classes of cosmetics] in relation to which and the conditions, limitations or restrictions subject to which, such powers and duties may be exercised or performed shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) No person who has any financial interest 3[in the import, manufacture or sale of drugs or cosmetics] shall be appointed to be an Inspector under this section.

(4) Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and shall be officially subordinate to such authority 4[, having the prescribed qualifications,] as the Government appointing him may specify in this behalf.]”.

7. To substantiate said contention, learned counsel further submitted that the identical issue raised before this Court in Crl.P.No.1121 of 2002, the same was allowed basing on the judgment of a Division Bench of Bombay High Court reported in State of Maharashtra vs. R.A. Chandwarakar and