HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6862 of 2009 DATED:28.08.2009 Between: Mr.V.Madhusudhana Rao and another .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6862 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Anand Seshu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.876 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore facing prosecution for the offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioners are stated to be the persons who sold the drugs in question to the retailer from whom the samples were lifted. In fact, the third accused, who supplied to the second accused, who in turn supplied the drugs to the first accused, acquired the subject drugs from the fourth accused, who confirmed the same when enquired into by the Drugs Inspector. The petitioners claim that they hold licences in Form No.20 B and 21 B for stocking, selling the drugs in wholesale, but they are not the manufacturers or licencees for manufacture of the drugs in question. They are bona fide purchasers and sellers under valid licences, without any knowledge of the quality of the drug, and the drugs as supplied were not in any way tampered with by them. Therefore, they could not have been prosecuted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is their contention. The petitioners relied on the copies of the licences issued in their favour, purchase invoices/tax invoices/bills (cash bills and credit bills) filed along with the Criminal Petition in support of their contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Criminal Petition No.1798 of 2009 decided by this Court on 15.07.2009 following J.Krishna Murthy V. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] and Crl.P.No.5920 of 1999 and batch decided on 31.10.2000 and Crl.P.No.2997 of 2001 decided on 27.08.2001. The factual matrix of those cases is more or less similar and it was concluded that no knowledge can be legitimately attributed to the accused, who purchased the drugs for sale, about the samples being not in conformity with the contents purported to constitute the drugs. Such an accused cannot be attributed with any lack of reasonable diligence and no formal proof is required in the circumstances where such a burden need not be placed on the accused on the admitted facts. The principles laid down in the said decisions squarely apply to the facts of the present case, in respect of the petitioners, and hence, they have to succeed. Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C.No.876 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore against the petitioners are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 28th August 2009 KH [1] 2007 (2) ALT (Cri) 277