IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH (7TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.10169 of 2010 Between: K. Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And: State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.P.No.10169 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing prosecution against the petitioner-A.6 in CC No.289 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur, Chittoor district. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State. Perused the record. 3. The Drug Inspector, Chittoor filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur against the accused alleging the offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with section 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’) and the same was taken cognizance in CC No.289 of 2004. According to the complainant, the petitioner-A.6 is the proprietor of Sri Valli Medical Agencies, Narasaraopet and that on 10.12.2001, sample of drug by name ‘Betamethasone tablets’ was collected at the shop of A.4 and the same was sent for analysis and the Public Analyst gave report on 01.11.2002 stating that the sample drug is not of standard quality. After securing necessary information, a letter was addressed to the petitioner, who in turn informed that he purchased the said drug from A.7 under invoice No.714 dated 10.10.2000. After obtaining necessary sanction, the Drug Inspector filed a complaint on 10.03.2004 and cognizance of the same was taken on 10.09.2004. 4. The petitioner-A.6 is admittedly not a manufacturer. A.1 is the manufacturer and A.1 Company is represented by A.2. According to the petitioner, he purchased the drug from A.7 under valid invoice and he is entitled for protection under Section 19(3) of the Act. He further contends that in view of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, he has been deprived of valid right under Section 25(3) and (4) of the Act for sending the sample for re-analysis. 5. Insofar as the second contention is concerned, the sample was lifted on 10.12.2001 and the analyst sent his report on 01.11.2002 and the complaint was filed on 10.03.2004. Thus, there has been considerable delay in filing of the complaint after lifting of the sample. There is nothing on record to show that on what date the shelf life of the drug expires. Even other wise, admittedly, the petitioner has not intimated the Drug Inspector about his intention to send the sample for re-analysis nor did the petitioner approach the Court and filed any application seeking re-analysis of the sample after he was served with copy of the report. The petitioner has not chosen to avail the remedy by duly complying with the procedural requirements as laid down in Section 25(3) & (4) of the Act. Having thus, failed to avail the benefit of the said provisions, the petitioner cannot now be heard to plead that he is deprived of valuable right of seeking reanalysis under the above provision. 6. However, insofar as the protection under section 19(3) of the Act is concerned, the petitioner is admittedly not a manufacturer and he was not found selling the drug in loose condition. Even according to the respondents, the petitioner was selling the drug in the sealed container in the same condition, in which he received them. It is stated that in respect of the same drug, several cases were registered against the petitioner-A.6 in different places through out the State and the petitioner filed petitions for quashing the prosecution in those cases and this Court in Crl.P.No.7984 of 2009 & batch and Crl.P.No.6483 of 2009 and Crl.P.No.6943 of 2009, allowed the said petitions and quashed further proceedings in those cases on the ground that the petitioner is entitled for protection under Section 19(3) of the Act. Copies of the orders of those criminal petitions are also placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The present case is thus covered by the earlier decisions of this Court in the above criminal petitions and the reasoning adopted therein insofar as the protection under Section 19(3) of the Act is concerned, holds good in the present case as well. 7. In the circumstances, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for protection under Section 19(3) of the Act and hence, further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.289 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Punganur, are not sustainable and they are accordingly quashed. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 07.12.2010 bss