THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7197 of 2009 DATED:09.09.2009 Between: K.Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderaband and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7197 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.S.S.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. The petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.77 of 2007 (C.C.No.93 of 2003) on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur facing prosecution for the offences punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The copy of the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector shows that the petitioner was claimed to have purchased the subject drug from the shop of the second accused. It was further stated that the proprietor of accused Nos.1 and 2 admitted that he supplied the drug to the petitioner’s shop and lifting of the samples by the Drugs Inspector was from the shop of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that he is protected by Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and he also claims to have been deprived of the right of sending the drug for reanalysis under Section 25(3) and (4) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Medicamen Biotech Limited V. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector[1], wherein the Apex Court held that the deprivation of the valuable right under Section 25(3) and (4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must necessitate the quashing of the proceedings due to such delay till after the expiry of the shelf life of the subject drug. In Crl.P.No.2997 of 2001 decided on 27.08.2001, also this Court gave protection to the seller of the drug, who had no knowledge of the sub-standard quality of the drug and who did not tamper with the drug while in his possession. In Crl.P.No.109 of 2008 decided on 11.02.2008, the learned Judge was dealing with Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which gave a similar protection to a person, who is neither an importer nor a manufacturer of an insecticide and held that where the seals were not found to be tampered and the seller appeared to have not meddled with the contents of the insecticide, he is entitled to the statutory protection. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similar is this case in which the petitioner is also entitled to such protection. The facts are not in dispute in the present case and both the protection under Section 19(3) of the Act and deprivation of the right under Section 25(3) and (4) of the Act appear to entitle the petitioner to have the proceedings against him quashed, as an abuse of process of law, as he only purchased the drug from accused Nos.1 and 2 and sold it to the third party without meddling with it in any manner when it was in his possession and as the shelf life of the drug expired long before the complaint was filed into the Court. Therefore, the Criminal Petition has to succeed. Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C.No.77 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 9th September 2009 KH [1] (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 20