Allowed

K.Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC10 Sept 2009CRLP/7203/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed further proceedings against the petitioner in a compounding proceeding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The court held that the petitioner, a mere retailer with no tampering allegations, is not disentitled to statutory protection despite delay in filing the complaint and drug expiry.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.118 of 2007 were quashed.

K.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of A.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD

¶2

Criminal Petition No.7203 of 2009

¶3

Dated : 10.09.2009

¶4

Between : K.Srinivasa Rao ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD

¶6

Criminal Petition No.7203 of 2009

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

Heard Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for both the respondents.

¶9

The petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.118 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, and the prosecution is in respect of offences punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is stated to have purchased the said drug from accused Nos.1 and 2, the relevant information regarding which was elicited by the Drugs Inspector from the concerned petitioner prior to filing the complaint, and the very allegations in the complaint show that the petitioner is neither a manufacturer nor the distributor of the Drug in question. The petitioner claims herein that on the admitted facts he is entitled to protection under Section 19(3) of the Act as a retailer and there was no allegation

¶10

that he has in any manner tampered or interfered with the drug in question while the relevant stocks were in his possession.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on Medicamen

¶12

Biotech Limited and another v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspecto r^[1] with reference to the delay in filing the complaint after lifting of the samples and claimed that the petitioner lost his valuable right under Section 25 (3) and (4) of the Act as the shelf life of the drug expired long prior to the filing of the complaint.

¶13

The facts are not in dispute, the delay in filing the complaint is patent, the expiry of shelf life of the drug is self evident and the very allegations in the complaint show that there is no whisper about the petitioner interfering or tampering with the drug in question while he is in possession due to which he is not disentitled to protection under Section 19(3) of the Act. The decision in Crl.P.No.2997 of 2001 dated 27.08.2001 and the decision in Crl.P.No.109 of 2008 dated 11.02.2008 under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of Insecticides Act, 1968, which is in pari materia with Section 19 of the Act, also come to the aid of the petitioner and the petitioner should, therefore, succeed.

¶14

In the result, the further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.118 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed.

¶15

______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶16

10^th September, 2009

¶17

SUR

¶18

[1] (2008) 3 SCC (Crl) 20

K.Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Srinivasa Rao, v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jakkula Rajesham, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Podapati Narsimlu , Raju Vs The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Smt. Veluru Vanitha, Vs The State of A.P.

Nadir Khajani, Vs State of a.P., rep by Public Prosecutor

N.Eshwar Rao, Vs R.S.Mallikarjuna

Shaik Imam Johny, Vs State of A.P.