THE HON’BEL SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.No.4465, 4881, 4882, 4884 & 4904 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner/A.8 in Crl.P.No.4465 of 2008 is the second petitioner/A.4 in remaining Criminal Petitions, and the first petitioner/A.3 is the medical distributor represented by the second petitioner. They filed these criminal petitions, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging filing of charge sheet against them for the offence punishable under Section 18 (a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners are accused in different C.Cs. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are that on 7.04.2004 the Drug Inspector picked up samples of 200 tablets of a drug namely “Folic Acid and Ferrous Sulphate Tablets (Large) of different batch numbers from the drug stores of Project Director of District Women & Child Development Agency, Karimnagar. On analysis they were found to be not of standard quality. After complying with the provision of law the complainant filed a complaint before the lower Court, who took cognizance of the cases in different C.C. numbers. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not the manufacturers and they are only distributors. The learned counsel mainly relied on Section 19(3) of the Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the present petitioners are distributors, and the charge sheet is also laid against them. Section 19 (3) of the Act reads as under. A person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of section 18 if he proves-- a) that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of that section; and c) that the drug or cosmetic, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it. As seen from the record, the second petitioner, after due notice by the Drug Inspector, submitted reply on 11.01.2004 in person to LW.1 stating that the said drugs were supplied to them by M/s.Maan Pharmaceuticals Limited. She also produced the invoice numbers along with reply. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have not informed the prosecuting agency that they are the distributors. They have informed LW.1 mentioning the invoice numbers to prove that they purchased the drugs from A.1, manufacturing company. When it is brought to the notice of the prosecuting agency that they are only distributors and they have complied with the conditions mentioned under Section 19(3) of the Act, they are not liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Act. In view of the same, the present complaint filed against the petitioners is not maintainable in law, and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the complaint filed against the petitioners herein, namely, M/s. S.P. Diagnostics, represented by Mrs. Devireddy Yamuna is hereby quashed. __________________ (RAJA ELANGO, J.) 2nd July, 2010 Js.