HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6943 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. The petitioner is facing the prosecution as the fourth accused in C.C.No.321 of 2006 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, along with four others under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”) and he is the proprietor of M/s. Sri Valli Medical Agencies, Narasaraopeta, who purchased the drug in question from the third accused and sold the same to the fifth accused. The petitioner claims that he cannot be made liable concerning any allegation about the quality and content of the drug being in violation of the provisions of the statute as he is only a retail seller and has nothing to do with the manufacture or distribution of the drug and he is entitled to the protection under Section 19 (3) of the Act. Precedents have stated without any deviation that a plea of warranty can be exercised by the distributor, dealer and a retailer in such cases. The petitioner also relies on the delay in filing the complaint till after expiry of three months after the expiry of the life of the drug as depriving him of the opportunity to prove his innocence by reanalysis of the drug. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that in Crl.P.No.6483 of 2009, this court on 28-08-2009 ordered the criminal proceedings to be quashed against the same petitioner on identical grounds. The contents of the complaint filed against the petitioner and others themselves show that when the Drug Inspector addressed the petitioner in respect of the drug in question, then itself the petitioner gave a reply about purchasing the drug in question from the third accused and selling the same to the fifth accused. The complaint did not dispute the said allegation of fact and there is also no allegation that the drug, after purchase from the third accused and before its sale to the fifth accused, had in any way been tampered with by the petitioner herein. On the admitted or undisputed fact scenario, therefore, the petitioner appears to be entitled to the protection of Section 19 (3) of the Act, apart from the delay depriving him of the right to have the drug reanalyzed. Therefore, on the same grounds on which the petitioner’s request in another criminal petition on identical facts has been allowed, this Criminal Petition has to also succeed. Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C.No.321 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-09-2009 Ksn