IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6482 OF 2010. Between: M/s. Skan Rsearch Lab (P) Ltd. 3/7B, Thirubuvanai, Mannadipet Commune, Pondicherry & 3-Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP Hyderabad & Anr. .. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri KVL Narsimha Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Public Prosecutor THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6482 OF 2010. O R D E R : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash all further proceedings in CC.No. 127 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, Chittoor district, against the petitioners including appearance of A1 to A4 and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners are arrayed as A-1 to A-4 in CC.No. 127 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, Chittoor district, registered for the offence under section 18 (a) (i) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under section 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised sole point to quash the complaint on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, Chittoor district. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on section 19 (3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 19 (3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which reads as hereunder: 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 complaint, it appears that on 7-2-2008 a copy of analytical report, along with Letter Rc.No.114/DI/CTR/NSQ/2008, dated 6-2-2008 is served personally by LW1, on A7. In turn A7 submitted letter dated 7-2-2008 along with attested copies of purchase invoices of subject drug and also distribution particulars. A7 disclosed that they have purchased the said drug from manufacturing company as per Invoice No. 104, dated 11-6-2007 and 138, dated 7- 7-2007 and also 166, dated 24-7-2007. There is no physical stock of KEECLOX-LS Capsules, Batch No. KLS-112 as found on 7- 2-2008. On 12-3-2008 LW1 received letter dated 3-3-2008 from A7 along with two letters stating that stock of subject drug is not available. The accused herein expressed and also informed LW-1 that the petitioner is not the manufacturer and he is only distributor and he produced the invoice before the concerned officer. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that in view of bar under section 93 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the present complaint in CC.No. 127 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, Chittoor district is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby quashed. _______________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 21-7-2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6482 OF 2010 21-7-2010