IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 7400 of 2009 Between: Smt.Alapati Vijaya Lakshmi . .Petitioner And The State through the Drug Inspector, Kadapa, rep. By its Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 7401 of 2009 Between: Smt.Alapati Vijaya Lakshmi . .Petitioner And The State through the Drug Inspector, Kadapa, rep. By its Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7400 & 7401 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent in both the cases. 2 ) The petitioner filed additional grounds in the Criminal Petitions. 3) The additional grounds taken in both the cases are about the respective complaints being filed after the expiry date of the drug and consequently becoming untenable in law as decided by the Apex Court. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court in MEDICAMEN BIOTECH LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. RUBINA BOSE, DRUG INSPECTOR[1]. The Apex Court held that Section 25(3) and Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 stand violated when the right of the accused to make a request for sending the sample for retesting becomes unavailable due to the delay in filing the complaint till after the expiry of the life of the drug. The Apex Court having found no explanation as to why the complaint was filed at a belated stage only about a month before the expiry of the life of the drug found that the violation of the rights under Section 25(3) and (4) of the Act must result in quashing of the proceedings against the accused. 5) It is not in dispute in the present case that as a matter of fact the complaints in both the cases have been filed much later to the expiry of the life of the drug in question and consequently on the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 6) Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C. No.1547 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad and C.C. No.470 of 2000 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad against the petitioner are quashed and the Criminal Petitions are allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 18, 2009 KSH [1] (2008)3 SCC(Cri) 20