IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 6461 of 2009 Between: R.Maruthi Kumar . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6461 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri Md.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. 2) The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No.590 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. He is facing prosecution for the specified offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the contents of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector show that the subject drug was purchased by the petitioner from the 1st accused in the case and sold to the 3rd accused in the case. The charge sheet does not allege the 2nd accused/the petitioner to have in any manner tampered or meddled with the drug while it was in his possession. The petitioner now claims that as he is neither the manufacturer nor the distributor of the drug and had furnished the required information to the Drugs Inspector when called for, he could not have been subjected to any criminal liability. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the earlier decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1798 of 2009, dated 15.07.2009, in which following earlier precedents, it was decided that the protection of Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 should be extended in such an event. In the present case also as the acquisition and disposal of the subject drug by the petitioner were lawful and as he could not have known with reasonable diligence that the drug would have in any manner contravened the provisions of the Act, he is also entitled to protection under Section 19(3) of the Act. 4) Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.590 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur, against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 16, 2009 KSH