THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2938 of 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them upon a private complaint lodged by the Drug inspector for the offences under section 11 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the violation of paragraphs 14(1) & (2) of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of S.O.1221(E), dated 15.05.2013 of Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India r/w Para 16(4) of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of S.O.1221 (E), Dated: 15.05.2013 of Ministry or Chemicals & Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceutials, Government of India read with section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in S.T.C.No.15 of 2023 before the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District.

2. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of respondents. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts in nut shell are that on 24.11.2015 the Drug Inspector inspected the premises of some medical pharmacies and observed that ‘Doxeebest’ tablets (Doxycycline Hyclate Tablets USP 100 mg.) which were manufactured by the 1^st petitioner stocked for sale bearing Maximum Retail Price of Rs.31.00 per 8 tablets i.e. Rs.3.87 per tablet. But the ceiling price+value added tax for the drugs in question is Rs.8.736 per 8 tablets i.e. Rs.1.092 per tablet as per the Gazette S.O.No.619(E), dt.26.02.2015. Therefore, the drugs were seized under cover of a seizure memo and deposited the same before the Court on 16.12.2015. After collecting information from various distributors and concluded that the drugs were manufactured by the 1^st petitioner and filed the complaint on 18.03.2023.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is no material to establish that the 2^nd petitioner is responsible for the day to day business of the 1^st petitioner company when the drugs in question were manufactured and sold with an MRP in excess of that prescribed by the Central Government. As per Section 10 of the Essential commodities Act, when an offence is alleged to have been committed by a company, it is only the person who was in charge for the conduct of business of the company at the time of the contravention, who can be prosecuted. It is submitted that paragraph 14(2) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of S.O.1221 (E), dt. 15-05-2013 states that the overcharged amount along with interest can be recovered by the Government in view of violation of paragraph 14(1). When that is the case, there is no occasion or requirement for the 2^nd respondent to launch prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act after a delay of 8 years. When the punishment is prescribed in the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013 itself, the 2^nd respondent is not justified in seeking alternate punishment by prosecuting the petitioners under the Act. Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any violation of paragraph 16(4) of the Order. The present prosecution is launched after 8 years and there is no justification for the 2^nd respondent for not filing the complaint immediately. The undue delay violates the rights of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to speedy and fair trial.

5. He placed reliance on a decision held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasmukhlal D.Vora and another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2022) 15 Supreme Court Cases 164, wherein it was held as under-

“25. There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093, inordinate delay, if not reasonably