THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.102 of 2010 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 24.11.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4655 of 2009 in C.C.No.333 of 2002 on the file of the court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad whereby the petition filed by the petitioners herein, who are accused 4 to 6 therein, seeking discharge from array of accused in the said case was dismissed. 2 Brief facts are that the Drugs Inspector, Khammam filed a private complaint against accused 1 to 6 in the said case alleging that the 3rd accused in the said case is manufacturing medicines which are substandard and accused 1 and 2 are the Managing Director and Director respectively of the said firm. It is further alleged that the accused No.6 is a firm to which the said substandard medicines were supplied and that accused 4 and 5 are partners of the A.6 firm and that accused 4 to 6 have violated the provisions of Section 18(a) (i) 18(i) r/w section 17(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 3 When the said proceedings are pending, accused 1 to 3 filed Crl.M.P.No.4442 of 2009 and accused 4 to 6 (petitioners herein) filed Crl.M.P.No.465 of 2009 seeking discharge from the array of accused in the said case. As stated supra, the court below by its common order dismissed the said two petitions. Assailing the correctness of the said order in dismissing their petition, the petitioners filed the present revision. 4 Heard. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners being the wholesale distributors cannot have the knowledge that the drugs supplied by A.1 to A.3 are substandard since they are not the manufacturers of the seized medicines. In this context the learned counsel relied on a decision of this court decided between J. Krishna Murthy and Others Vs. State of A.P. Rep. By Public Prosecutor and another[1]. 6 In J. Krishna Murthy case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners a learned Judge of this court in identical circumstances while quashing the proceedings pending against the accused therein held at para 7 as under: “There is no mention in the complaint whether the drugs Inspector brought to the notice of the wholesalers that a particular retailer was not having any drug licence or that the wholesalers knowing fully well that the retailer does not have any drug licence, intentionally supplied the drug to a non licence holder. As the complaint is silent about the mens rea, it will be treated that the petitioners, being wholesalers, have supplied the drugs with a bona fide impression that the retailer continues to hold the licence. Unless there is knowledge to the petitioners that the retailer was not renewed to continue the business, the petitioners do not have the element of guilty mind to commit the offence. Only in the event of absolute plea that the petitioners supplied the drugs to the retailer knowing fully well that he does not continue to hold the licence, then only it can be said that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be continued against the petitioners for the alleged offences. 7 Here in the case on hand it is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners do not possess valid licence and on the other hand it is the case of the petitioners that they got valid licence to carry on the said business and it is also their contention that they do not have knowledge that the accused 1 to 3 are manufacturing and supplying substandard medicines. In those circumstances the facts of the J. Krishna Murthy case (1 supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. Hence this court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences since there was no mens rea to the petitioners which is an essential ingredient for criminal offence. 8 Accordingly this revision is allowed, the order impugned in this revision, in so far it relates to the petitioners herein is concerned i.e. Crl.M.P.No.4655 of 2009 in C.C.No.333 of 2002 on the file of the court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is hereby set aside and the petitioners who are A.4 to A.6 in the said case are discharged from the array of accused in the said case. --------------- 28.03.2011 Kvsn [1] 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.) 277 (A.P)