Kerala HC Quashes Drugs Act Proceedings Against Homeopath, Citing Father's Valid License

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a Homeopathic Medical Practitioner accused under Sections 18(c) and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, finding that the alleged illegal procurement of medicines was for his father's clinic, who held a valid license.

Justice BECHU KURIAN THOMAS , while hearing a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.MC No. 6638 of 2018) filed by Dr. Navaneeth K. Unni , observed that continuing the prosecution would serve no purpose as the allegations, even if taken as true, do not constitute the offences against the petitioner.

The case originated from a private complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad (C.C.No.2914/2015). The complaint was based on information alleging that the petitioner, Dr. Navaneeth K. Unni , was practicing Homeopathy and selling medicines without proper authority or qualification from 'M/s Panacea Homeo Clinic'. The Drugs Inspector's enquiry revealed that bills for homeopathic medicines were found, and it was alleged that the purchase and stocking of medicines prior to the petitioner's registration as a homeopath on 10.06.2013 were without authority and violated the Act.

The petitioner, represented by Adv. Reena Abraham , argued that he was duly registered as a Homeopathic Practitioner on 10.06.2013 and the inspection occurred on 15.07.2013. Crucially, it was submitted that the clinic was run by his father, who was also a registered Homeopathic Medical Practitioner since 10.06.1998 and held valid licenses. Therefore, medicines purchased and stored in the clinic could not be considered illegally procured, even if purchased prior to the petitioner's own registration.

The Additional Director of Prosecution, Sri. Grashious Kuriakose, assisted by learned Public Prosecutor Sri. T.R. Renjith, contended that the bills seized indicated purchases in January 2012 and May 2013, dates prior to the petitioner's registration. They argued that the exemption under Rule 123 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is available only to a registered Medical Practitioner, and the petitioner was not registered at the time of the alleged procurement.

After considering the rival contentions, the Court noted the undeniable fact (supported by Annexure-A4) that the petitioner's father was a registered Homeopathic Doctor from 10.06.1998 and his registration was valid on the inspection date.

The Court reasoned: "Concededly, petitioner's father was a Medical Practitioner on the date of inspection and even before that... Annexure-A4 indicates that petitioner's father became a registered Homeopathic Doctor, as early as on 10.06.1998 and the said registration was valid even on the date of inspection. Therefore, the procurement of medicines and payment in 2011, 2012 and 2013 cannot be said to be per se illegal, since it was procured for the Homeopathic Clinic conducted by petitioner's father. Merely because petitioner's could have personally collected the medicines cannot be treated as procurement by the petitioner. The medical clinic was also being run by the petitioner's father who all the valid licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for purchasing stocking and selling such medicines."

The Court further pointed out that the petitioner himself was a registered Medical Practitioner on the date of inspection (15.07.2013). Citing precedents like Priyanka Mishra v. State of Kerala and Religare Finvest Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi , the Court emphasized the need to protect individuals from vexatious prosecution when the allegations fail to make out an offence.

Applying the principles of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court concluded that quashing the proceedings was necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice.

Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.2914/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad were quashed.