IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT PETITION No.23098 of 2004 Between: M/s.Pacific Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 309, Industrial Area, 4th Phase, Peennya, Bangalore, Rep.by its Mg.Director, Dr.Yatindra Nath Shetty, Aged about 52 years, And another. ...Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, The Director, C/o.Office of the Inspector General Drugs & Copy Writes, Drug Control Administration, Rep.by its Drugs Inspector, Vengalrao Nagar, Hyderabad, And another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Gani Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Medical Health and Family Welfare for respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2. This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23098 of 2004 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for issue of a writ of prohibition against learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, from proceeding with C.C.No.872 of 2002. Petitioner No.1 is a Company involved in manufacture of certain drugs. The Director, General Drugs and Copy Writes, filed a complaint under para 14(2) and (3) of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, wherein the petitioners are accused of charging a sum of Rs.4.88 per 10 tablets in excess of ceiling price for Ibuprofen 400mg and Paracetamol 325mg. The complaint of the respondents was taken cognizance by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, by registering the same as C.C.No.872 of 2002. Neither the averments in the affidavit nor the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners had convinced me to hold that initiation of criminal proceedings on the complaint given by the respondents on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Admittedly, charging excess amounts above the price prescribed under the provisions of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, constitutes an offence. Respondents are, therefore, competent to file a complaint wherever violation of the provisions of the said order is noticed. Whether the petitioners are guilty of offence or not requires to be adjudicated in the trial by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interdict the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to participate in the trial of the case and contest their prosecution. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:18.12.2009 vs