HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3774 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.31 of 2005 on the file of the Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli. Brief facts of the prosecution are that during the course of inspection, on 15.07.2003 the Drugs Inspector, Guntur, collected samples of Amoxycillin Capsules from M/s. Srinivasa Medical Enterprises, M/s. Sri Ganesh Medicals, Sattenapalli, Guntur District and M/s. Tirumala Medical & General Stores, Atchampeta, Guntur District, and sent the same to the Analyst for analysis. After receiving Analytical Reports for all these three samples from the Government Analyst, Hyderabad, that the samples are not of standard quality, the Drugs Inspector enquired the said shop owners regarding the source of supply of the drug. On that, they disclosed that they acquired the said drug from M/s. Srivalli Medical Agencies, Narasaraopet, petitioner herein-accused No.2. When enquired the petitioner as to the source of supply of the drug, he stated that he purchased the drug from M/s. Nirma Pharma, Sultan bazaar, Hyderabad, accused No.1. Thereby, accused Nos.1 and 2 violated Section 18(a) (i) r/w Section 17(B) (d) & 17(B) (e) and Section 18A and 18B of the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner purchased the drug under valid invoices from M/s. Nirmala Pharma, Accused No.1 and the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser is not liable for prosecution in view of Section 19(3) of the Act that a person not being the manufacturer of drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for the contravention of section 18 of the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded that the said provision is applicable to the present case in view of the fact that the petitioner informed the Investigating Agency that he is the retailer and also produced invoices for purchase of the drug and also informed the manufacturer. Section 19(3) of the Act reads as under: “A person not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of Section 18, if he proves: (a) that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of that section; and (c) that the drug or cosmetic, while in his possession was properly stored and remained in the same state as and when he acquired it. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that being a retailer the petitioner can not be tried for the offence alleged, in view of the prohibition under Section 19(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.31 of 2005 on the file of the Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli, are hereby quashed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 26th August, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3774 of 2009 (Allowed) 26th August, 2010 CBS