Advocates:
['M/S T D SELVAN BABU', '', 'M S RAJENDRAN', 'M PURUSHOTHAMAN']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.01.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

Crl.O.P.No.27184 of 2017 &

Crl.M.P.Nos.15584 & 15585 of 2017

1.M/s. Lupin Limited,

No.508/3, Inner Ring Road, Ist Floor,

Madhavaram, Chennai – 60 rep. by its

Managing Director Dr.Kamal K.Sharma

2.Mr.K.Subramanian, age 50,

Authorized Signatory of M/s. Lupin Limited,

No.508/3, Inner Ring Road, Ist Floor,

Madhavaram, Chennai – 60.

3.M/s. Lupin Limited,

Vivekanand School Road,

Zirkapur, Chandigarh Highway,

Vill. Pabhat, Zirakpur 140105 rep. by its

Managing Director Dr. Kamal K. Sharma

4.Mr.A.K.Kothari, age 53

Authorized Signatory M/s Lupin Limited

Vivekanand School Road,

Zirkapur, Chandigarh Highway,

Vill. Pabhat, Zirakpur 140105.

... Petitioners

Vs

State Rep. by

The Drugs Inspector

Salem II Range, Salem Zone,

O/o the Asst. Director of Drugs Control,

7, Thiruvalluvar Street,

Subramania Nagar, Salem – 5.

... Respondent

Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Complaint bearing C.C.No.7 of

2013 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate – I,

Salem and quash the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham

Senior Counsel

for M/s.T.D.Selvan Babu

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Respondent :

Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal,

Government Advocate (Crl. side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash

the proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2013 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate – I, Salem.

2.Admittedly, the petitioners herein are the sellers having

purchased the ACEMIZ gel from the accused 1 to 4, who are the

manufacturers. The averments made in the complaint also states

that the petitioners herein are the super stockist for the

manufacturers and their agents.

3.According to the learned senior counsel for the

petitioners, in view of the exemption under Section 19 of the

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the petitioners, since not being

a manufacturer, has benefit of plea under Section 19(3) of the

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The accused nos.5 to 8 herein are

only sellers and not the manufacturers. By relying on the drug

distribution licence issued to the fifth accused/Company and the

invoice of having purchased the subject gel, he would submit

that he was entitled to buy and stock the goods and therefore,

the petitioners are not deemed to be an agent or manufacturer.

4.As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for

the petitioners, the drug distribution licence evidences the

first petitioner herein as a seller and not as a manufacturer or

an agent of the first accused. Likewise, it is seen from the

invoices produced before this Court that the seized drugs have

been purchased by the first petitioner herein from the

manufacturers. In the light of the first petitioner's license

and the aforesaid invoices, it can only be concluded that the

petitioners herein were neither the manufacturer of the drugs

nor the agent for the distribution thereof. While that being so,

the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit under section

19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) by relying on

the averments made in the complaint submitted that the

petitioners herein are the agents of the first accused and

therefore the benefit of Section 19(3) cannot be extended to the

petitioners. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) further

submitted that the benefit of plea also cannot be extended on

the ground that the petitioners with the reasonable

deliberations, could have ascertain that the drug contravened

the provisions of that Section.

6. I am unable to comprehend as to how such an averment made

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

in the complaint can be maintainable, in view of the specific

provisions under Section 19(3) of the said Act.