HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2606 of 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.323 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, for the alleged violations of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Medicamen Biotech Limited Vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector[1] for the proposition that where the accused is deprived of his valuable right under Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 due to the delay till after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample drug, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.2997 of 2001 decided on 27.08.2001 wherein it was held that sellers of the drug without any knowledge of the sub-standard quality of the drug cannot be attributed with any criminal liability. The learned counsel further referred to another decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.109 of 2008 decided on 11.02.2008 wherein the learned Judge referred to sub-section 3 of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 which gives protection to the person, who is neither an importer nor a manufacturer of an insecticide from any liability against contravention of the provisions of that Act unless he has knowledge about the contents of the insecticide being substandard or misbranded or unless he tampered with the insecticide in question, while he is in possession. The principle of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is contended to be the same as under Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The factual matrix of the present case indisputably shows that Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act gives a blanket protection to the retailer in this regard like the protection given under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, apart from the delay in filing the complaint till after the expiry of the period of shelf life of the drug in question probably depriving the petitioner of the right to have the sample of the drug reanalysed. Under the circumstances, the criminal petition has to succeed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.323 of 2006 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed shall stand closed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 29th March, 2011 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.2606 of 2011 (Allowed) 29th March, 2011 CBS [1] (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 20