IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2369 of 2024 DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between M/s. Landmark Hospitals & 2 Others …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad through P.S. Saroornagar, WPS and Another …Respondents

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1844 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned XXXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, registered for the offence under Section 18(c) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘Act’) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii)

of the Act.

02. Heard Mr. P.Subhash, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

03(a). The brief facts of the case are that on

07.05.2015, the then Drugs Inspector, Balanagar (LW-1), along with LW-2, the then Drugs Inspector, Jinnaram, proceeded to M/s. Landmark Hospitals Medical Stores situated at Cellar, Plot Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in Sy.No.127, MCK Block No.2, Hydernagar. On reaching the premises, LW-1 secured two mediators (LWs.3 and 4) and conducted an inspection of the said premises. During inspection, it was observed that drugs were stocked/exhibited for sale and distribution, and the petitioner-accused No.2 was present at that time. LW-1 enquired with the accused No.2 to produce a valid drug licence for stocking and sale of drugs at the said premises. The petitioner-accused No.2 informed that they did not possess any valid drug licence for stocking drugs at that place. Thus, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 were found conducting sale of drugs from the said cellar without holding a valid drug license.

03(b). It is further averred in the complaint that as per Rule 62 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, where drugs are sold or stocked for sale at more than one place, a separate application shall be made and a separate licence shall be obtained in respect of each such place. LW1 lifted samples of two drugs from the stocked drugs, duly following the procedure laid down under Section 23 of the Act and prepared Form No.17. LW1 also seized 68 items of drugs available in the premises under the cover of a panchanama, and a receipt was issued to the petitioner-accused No.2 under acknowledgement. On 08.05.2015, LW1 intimated the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Miyapur, regarding the seizure conducted and deposited the original Form-16, original panchanama and the seized property before the Court. On 07.12.2017, the then Drugs Inspector issued a notice to the petitioner-accused No.2 under Sections 18-A and 22(1)(cca) of the Act. On 23.04.2018, LW5, Drug Inspector, received a letter from the petitioner-accused No.2 stating that one Chandrakanth was the In-charge of the Medical Stores and one M. Raja Ramesh was appointed as Purchase Manager. On 28.04.2018, LW5 issued notice to the said Chandrakanth. Thereafter, on 29.04.2022, LW6, Drugs Inspector, Balanagar, issued notice to the petitioner-accused No.3. Therefore, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 have contravened Section 18(c) of the Act, by stocking drugs meant for sale in an unlicensed premises.

04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the complaint. He contends that the alleged inspection and seizure took place on 07.05.2015, but until 2018 no substantial steps were taken. It is further submitted that even the samples allegedly lifted were not sent for analysis in a timely manner and no analyst’s report was filed for a considerable period. He further contends that during the years 2017-2018, except for issuance of two notices, no effective action was taken by the complainant, and thereafter the authorities remained silent until 29.04.2022. Ev