THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.1296 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in S.T.C.No.3 of 2008 in C.C.No.564 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry registered for the offence punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner, P.W.3 in the criminal case is the proprietor of M/s Sai Pharma Traders. According to him, one T.Narayana Rao, P.W.1 Drug Inspector had inspected and lifted sample of Brox Tablet manufactured by M/s Oxford Laboratories, Nidamanuru (A1) on 13.6.2001 and sent the same to the Government Analyst and consequently received a report along with covering letter on 13.9.2001 to the effect that the said drug (Brox tablet) was of sub-standard quality as the sample did not comply with the test for disintegration as per I.P. 96 and thereafter P.W.1 issued notice under Section 18A of the Act to the petitioner to disclose the name and address of the person from whom he received the product and the petitioner informed that he purchased the product from M/s Winphar Remedies and later P.W.1 issued notice to M/s Winphar Remedies on 26.9.2001 to disclose the source of supply under Section 18A of the Act and he also sent a letter to R.Udaya Bhaskar (P.W.2) who served a copy of the notice under Section 18A and analyst report and other relevant papers on M/s Winphar Remedies, Vijayawada and later he received a reply from P.W.2 that he served the same on M/s Winphar Remedies on 25.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner received summons from the Court as to taking cognizance of the case against him under Section 344 Cr.PC. for giving false evidence in the case. Hence this petition. It is pertinent to note here as per the version of the complaint that in the presence of the petitioner, business was conducted and the Drug Inspector seized the counterbrand drug taking necessary measures and ultimately report was prepared which was signed by P.W.1 and so also the petitioner (P.W.3), which prima facie shows that having knowledge about the proceedings, he sent a report. Further, the deposition of the petitioner as P.W.3 discloses that he was not present at the time of inspection, whereas a worker of the shop was present at that time in the shop. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not in the shop at the relevant point of time, he has no knowledge about what happened and in fact by force his signature was obtained and therefore, it cannot be said that he gave false evidence and he is guilty of perjury and hence the proceedings issued by the learned Magistrate are not tenable. When the record shows that he was present in the shop at the time of the proceedings and accordingly he signed the report, but his evidence provides that he had deviated from his earlier version, it prima facie amounts to perjury. Further, unless necessary trial is conducted, the complicity of the petitioner cannot be determined. At this stage, I cannot go into merits of the case and decide whether the proceedings were taken up by P.W.1 Drug Inspector in the absence of the petitioner and his signatures were obtained by force. The said aspects can be raised by the petitioner at the time of trial of the case. Ultimately, there are no merits in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 3-12-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.1296 of 2009 3.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.1296 of 2009 Date: 3.12.2011 Between: Nanduri Atmarao .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent