Intermediaries are not liable for third-party sales under the Drugs Act, especially when there's a significant delay in filing complaints.

ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2019 pending before the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi registered for offences punishable under Sections 18(c) and 27(b)(ii), 18A and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh representing the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-

The petitioners are Directors of Jasper Infotech Private Limited now known as Snapdeal Private Limited. The petitioners are on the Board of Snapdeal since incorporation of the company. On 02-12-2014 claiming to be on credible information the drug Suhagra-100 mg. was exhibited on the company’s website, the respondent claims to have placed an order for the said tablet on the petitioners company’s website through his e- mail ID. On 10-12-2014 in furtherance of the order, the tablets were delivered to the respondent and on receipt, in the presence of two witnesses, panchanama was drawn on the spot. The allegation is that petitioners company’s website exhibited Suhagra 100 mg. tablet for sale and provided a platform to the seller and purchaser without possessing valid retail drug licence. It was further alleged that displaying and exhibiting the said drug for sale without licence was in contravention of the provisions of the Act.

4. Based upon the said incident which happened on 10.12.2014, a complaint came to be registered on 03-01-2019, five years thereafter, alleging that the petitioners were involved in the commission of offences punishable under Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii), 18A and 28 of the Act. On 07-01-2019, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii), 18A and 28 of the Act and directs registration of a case against the petitioners. On issuance of summons pursuant to taking of such cognizance, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petitions.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri.C.V.Nagesh representing the petitioners would vehemently argue and contend that the petitioners are only intermediaries and would not become liable for prosecution particularly under the Act. The Company of the petitioners is only a platform through which sale happens on its website. He would further submit that for an incident or a panchanama that was drawn in the year 2014, complaint is registered after five years. The learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance is his emphatic submission.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would however, contend that the petitioners are guilty of providing such platform for sale of medicine without there being a valid drug licence or a retail drug licence for such sale.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the material on record.

8. The petitioners are Directors of Snapdeal Private Limited. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are intermediaries or a platform that would enable sale or purchase of any goods. Whether an intermediary like the Snapdeal Private Limited can be hauled into these proceedings need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as this Court in Criminal Petition No.4676 of 2020 and connected matter decided on 7th January 2021 between the same parties and on identical allegations has held that the petitioners being intermediaries cannot be seen to be hauled up in criminal proceedings. Points No.(vi) and (vii) in the aforesaid judgment is what covers the present case on all its fours and are therefore relied on for t