HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1127 OF 2004 DATED 6th JULY, 2010. BETWEEN The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor …..Petitioner/Complainant and K.Sivasankara Rao and ors … Respondents/Accused HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1127 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. is ﬁled aggrieved by the order dated 22-3-2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.555 of 2004 in C.C.No.231 of 2001 by the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Chirala discharging the accused of the charge under Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Brief facts of the prosecution are that the Drugs Inspector sent the samples collected from the shop of the Accused No. 11 to the Analysis and the Analyst declared that the same are not of the standard quality. Whereas it is the case of the respondents/accused that they are not the manufacturers of the Drug and they purchased the same from the licenced dealers and they have not committed any oﬀence as alleged. However, the Drugs Inspector ﬁled a complaint against the respondents/accused alleging that they are liable for the oﬀence under Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The learned trial Judge discharged the respondents/accused on the ground that they being the retailers, they cannot be tried for the oﬀence alleged in view of the prohibition under Section 19 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 19(3) of the said Act reads as under: “ 19(3): 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 when he acquired it.” The learned Public Prosecutor though preferred this revision before this Court fairly submitted that the said provision is applicable to the present case. In view of the fact that the respondents/accused informed the investigating agency that they are the retailers and they also produced invoices for purchase of the said medicine and also informed the manufacturers. The Criminal Revision Case therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 6th July, 2010. Msnr.