HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.880 of 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.203 of 2007 on the file of the IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”). Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that without considering the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioners, the Commissioner & Licensing Authority, Food & Drugs Control Administration, Gandhinagar, Gujarat State, in exercise of power under Rule 85(2) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 suspended the petitioners’ licence for a period of two days, by an order dated 19.09.2006. Subsequently, on the same set of facts and allegations, on 27.02.2007 the Drugs Inspector, Guntur Division, lodged a complaint in C.C.No.203 of 2007 before the IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. He further contended that for one offence there cannot be two proceedings. Therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings in the calendar case. The learned counsel has misconstrued the provisions in the Constitutional Law as well as Cr.P.C. According to the articles of the Constitutional Law and the provisions of Cr.P.C., a person should not be prosecuted for the same offence twice. But in this case, cancellation of licence or suspension of licence is procedural one which has empowered the Officer concerned to suspend the licence of the petitioners for violation of the conditions of the licence. Whereas the penal provision is Section 27(d) of the Act for the purpose of punishing a person for selling sub standard drugs. In the light of the same, the order passed by way of suspending the licence cannot be equated with the prosecution for selling the substandard drugs. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel are not merit acceptance and the same are hereby rejected. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed and the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed. As far as the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court is concerned, as the question of their identity does not arise and they are also not disputing the fact that they did not manufacture the drugs seized, their appearance before the trial Court is dispensed with except the dates on which the learned Magistrate insist for their appearance and they shall be properly represented through their counsel. _____________ RAJA ELANGO, J 7th February, 2011 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No.880 of 2011 (Disposed of) 7th February, 2011 CBS