THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.534 of 2011 BETWEEEN: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor … Appellant AND 1. M/s. Sainovet Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. & 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.534 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy by Judgment dated 15.06.2009 in CC.No.100 of 2005 acquitted the respondents 1 to 4/A1 to A4 of the charge under Section 22(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, the Act). In this case, the sample veterinary drug by name Sulphamethoxazole+Trimethoprim, water soluble powder was obtained by the Drugs Inspector from PW2 on 26.09.2003. After analysis, it was found to be not of standard quality and does not meet the labelled claim, as per report of the Government analyst. The Drugs Inspector did not prosecute PW2, but prosecuted A3 and A4 who were stated to have sold the veterinary drug to PW2 and A1 and A2 who are manufacturers of the said veterinary drug. Evidence on record namely Exs. P17 and P18 show that PW2 was having requisite licence from 01.01.2001 to 31.12.2002 and thereafter from 01.10.2007 to 30.09.2012. By the date of purchase of the veterinary drug of the Drugs Inspector from PW2, PW2 was not having any Drugs licence for storing and selling drugs under the relevant provisions of the Act in his shop styled as M/s.Vinayaka Veterinary Medical and General Stores. The lower Court also noticed that place of business of PW2 differs from Ex.P4 purchase bill to the address given in Panchanama. Thus, PW2 was doing business in unauthorised place without holding any licence; and inspite of it, the Drugs Inspector did not choose to prosecute PW2 along with A1 to A4. The Drugs Inspector, PW1 purchased the sample from an unauthorized person and not from a registered drug dealer. When basis of purchase of the sample is knocked out, the prosecution cannot stand on the alleged disclosures of source of supply of the said drug to PW2 by A3 and A4. In that view of the matter, the lower Court is justified in disallowing the prosecution of A1 to A4 in the absence of prosecution of PW2. The order of acquittal recorded by the lower Court is not in any way perverse or manifestly unjust. Hence, this appeal fails. 2. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 13.04.2011 ysk