IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7095 OF 2010 Between : Sai Venkataramana Pharma rep. by Sri P.Vykuntam and others. ....PETITIONERS A N D The State of A.P.and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7095 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners – A.3 and A.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.164 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sriharikota, Vizianagaram, for the offence punishable under Section 18 (a) (i) 27 (d) read with Section 16, and Schedule II of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.2004 the complainant lifted a sample of Serasif–D tablets B.No.SDD-001, which were manufactured in March, 2003 and would expired by February, 2005. The medicine was manufactured by A.1. On 18.08.2004, the complainant sent the said sample to Government Analyst as per the provisions of the Act. On 02.11.2004, he received the Analyst report wherein it is stated that the medicine is not of standard quality and it does not meet the I.P. specifications for the disintegration test for enteric coated tablets and as per labeled claim for content of serratiopeptidase. Thereafter he issued notice to A.3, and subsequently lodged the present complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner-A.3 is the Company and A.4 is the owner of the said Company. He further submitted that the petitioner Company is the purchaser and a retail seller and it is not at all concerned with the manufacturing of the same. He also submitted that Section 19(3) of the Act, a person, not being a manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of Section 18. Further, as seen from the record and also from the complaint that A.3 Company purchased the subject drug from A-1 vide invoice No.756, dated 31.03.2003. When the petitioners herein have purchased the same for being sold as retailer sellers, no prosecution would lie as per Section 19(3) of the Act. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded that in view of the provisions the Act, the present complaint lodged against the petitioners is not maintainable. 5. In view of the above, the present complaint in C.C.No.164 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sriharikota, Vizianagaram, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO JULY 27, 2010. YVL