HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.7984, 7986, 8019 and 8020 of 2009 Dated : 25.09.2009 Between : Sri Valli Medical Agencies ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.7984, 7986, 8019 and 8020 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri P.Kalyan Ram, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents, in all the four criminal petitions. The petitioner is facing prosecution along with others in all the four cases covered by four criminal petitions under different provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (for short, ‘the Act’). In C.C.No.242 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, for the quashing of which criminal petition No.7984 of 2009 was filed, the petitioner is facing prosecution in respect of lifting of samples of the subject drug on 26.02.2002 in respect of which the complaint was made on 19.08.2003. In answer to the allegation that the said drug is not of standard quality, the petitioner submits that the drugs were purchased from the seventh accused for which, the invoices issued by the first accused represented by the second accused were produced. The petitioner further claims that apart from the protection under Section 19 (3) of the Act, the complaint by the Drugs Inspector was filed much later to the date of expiry of the drug negativing the availability of the right under Section 25 sub sections (3) & (4) of the Act to the petitioner. In criminal petition No.7986 of 2009 the petitioner is facing prosecution in C.C.No.498 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. In criminal petition No.8019 of 2009 also, the petitioner is facing prosecution similarly in C.C.No.499 of 2007 on the file of the same Court. In criminal petition No.8020 of 2009, the petitioner is facing prosecution before the same Court in C.C.No.501 of 2007. Lifting of the samples in all the four cases was on 26.02.2002 and the contentions of the prosecution and the defence of the accused raised therein are identical. The facts are not seriously in dispute and on such factual background, in the absence of any allegation or proof of the subject drugs being meddled with or tampered in any manner while they were in possession of the petitioner, the protection under Section 19 (3) of the Act has to be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner is relying on the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.6943 of 2009 in this regard, which again is based on the consistent view taken in the decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. Apart from such protection under Section 19 (3) of the Act, the delay in filing complaint in all the four cases beyond the dates of expiry of the subject drugs also entitles the petitioner to the benefit of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Medicamen Biotech Limited v. Rubina Bose[1]. The Apex Court had concluded that when the accused is deprived of the valuable right under Section 25 sub sections (3) and (4) of the Act, the same must necessitate the quashing of the proceedings against them. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to succeed in all the four criminal petitions. Accordingly, the further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.Nos.242, 498, 499 and 501 of 2007 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor, are quashed and the criminal petitions are allowed accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 25th September, 2009 SUR [1] (2008) 3 SCC (Crl) 20