THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.87 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners – A-1 to A-3 assailing the order in Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2006 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada reversing the judgment in C.C. No.112 of 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram. 2. The case of the prosecution against the petitioners herein along with A-4 to A-7 is that the medicine viz., Ampicillin & Cloxacillin capsules found at the medical shop of A-6 does not contain Cloxacillin of 250 miilligram per capsule as mentioned on the label and thereby the medicine was found to be not of standard quality, as such, the petitioners herein along with A-4 to A-7 were prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram for the offence under Section 18(a)(i) of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. 3. However, the learned Magistrate discharged the petitioners herein along with A-6 and A-7 vide his judgment dated 19-01-2006 which reads as under: “Complainant called absent. No representation. Inspite of passing conditional order complainant no representation. A.P.P. called absent. A1, A2, A3 absent. 317 petition allowed. A6, A5 present. For want of prosecution A1, A2, A3, A6, A7 were discharged.” Assailing the said order of the learned Magistrate, prosecution filed Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2006 before the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. 4. The learned Sessions Judge considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after an elaborate discussion of the matter, allowed the revision petition finding that the prosecution can be given a chance to proceed with the matter on merits since the subject matter of the case relates to a charge of substandard medicines and it requires some sort of consideration by the Court and disposal of the same on merits. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioners filed this revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the material available on record. 6. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the order impugned suffers from any error or infirmities? 7. Now the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order impugned is illegal, irregular and unjust since the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the points/technicalities involved in the matter in proper perspective and misdirected himself in coming to a wrong conclusion and thereby allowed the revision setting aside the judgment of discharge of the petitioners by the learned Magistrate. Further, the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that for the lapses of the prosecution, the petitioners shall not be suffered. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supporting the order impugned contended that the learned Sessions Judge rightly set aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate by giving cogent reasons since the charge involved in the case is of substandard medicine, which is a very serious crime/offence involving the lives of innocent people/patients, and, as such, the matter requires disposal on merits, and therefore, there are no grounds to entertain this revision by this Court. 9. A perusal of the material on record reveals that the matter is not at the stage of trial and no summons were issued to the witnesses. The order impugned also shows that the counsel appearing for the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge submitted that if the Court feels to allow the revision petition filed by the prosecution to dispose of the matter on merits, there is no serious objection from the petitioners. However, having submitted so by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge, again filed this revision without showing any point/ground to entertain this revision. Further, as held by the learned Sessions Judge, the charge against the petitioners is of producing/manufacturing or selling substandard medicine, which is a very serious offence having impact on the lives of innocent people/patients, requiring disposal of the matter on merits. 10. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned Sessions Judge rightly allowed the revision petition setting aside the judgment of the learned Magistrate. Thus, the order impugned does not suffer from any error or infirmities requiring interference of this Court, as such, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order in Criminal Revision Petition No.9 of 2006 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kakinada. __________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J Date:_____________ PV