COMMON ORDER:

Since the petitioners in these Criminal Petitions are accused in P.R.C.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, Adilabad District, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused in PRC.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

3. Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri E.Venkata Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

4. The brief facts of the case are that accused Nos.1 and 2 have stocked the drugs for sale without holding a valid license in contravention of Section 18 (c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. They have also not produced the purchase bills for some of the drugs seized from them thereby contravening Section 22(1) (cca) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and, therefore, they are held liable for the punishment under Sections 27 (b) (ii), 28 and 22(3) for contravention of the provisions under Section 18 (c), 18-A and 22(1) (cca) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Accused Nos.3 to 206 have carried out sale of drugs for the purpose of resale to accused Nos.1 and 2 without holding the requisite license to sell, stock, exhibit for sale or distribute the drugs in contravention of condition 3 (ii) of Form 20B vide Rule 61(1) and condition 4 (ii) of Form 21-B vide Rule 61(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 r/w Section 18 (a) (vi) of drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 and, therefore, the prosecution has initiated proceedings against the petitioners/accused along with others in P.R.C.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mancherial, Adilabad District holding that they are liable for punishment under Section 27 (d) for contravention of the provisions under Section 18 (a) (vi) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1980.

5. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the complaint against the petitioners does not stand to scrutiny and does not attract any offence even as per Form 20 (b) sub-clause (2) of clause (ii) on the ground that accused Nos.1 and 2 have attached to Sri Rama Prasuthi Nursing Home. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners as they have carried out the sale of drugs for the purpose of resale to accused No.1 and 2.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State submitted that whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not will be decided after conducting full-fledged trial and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in PRC.No.4 of 2014 cannot be quashed at the threshold.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that, admittedly, the petitioners are registered suppliers of various drugs having valid licence to supply the same and they are running medical shop in a nursing home and even before expiry of the said licence, they made an application for renewal of licence by paying requisite challan on 06.05.2009 to the authorities concerned.

8. Rule 63 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, prescribes procedure for duration of license, which reads as follows:

“63. Duration of license - A licence issued in Forms

20, 20A, 20B, 20BB, 20F, 20G, 21, 21A, 21B or Form 21BB shall remain valid, if licencee deposits a licence retention fee referred to in sub-rule (2) before the expiry of a period of every succeeding five years from the date of its issue, unless, it is suspended or cancelled by the licensing authority.

(2). The licence retention fee referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be equivalent to the respective fee required for the grant of such licence.

(3). If the licencee fails t