M/S. Speciality Drugs vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 January, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

M/S. Speciality Drugs vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 January, 2025

APHC010685082022
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                        PRADESH
                                     AT AMARAVATI
                              (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396]
                TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY
                         TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
                                     PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10050/2022
Between:
  1. M/S. SPECIALITY DRUGS, D.NO.49-24-1/60 , SHOP NO.201, B.K.
     TOWERS , AKKAYYAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM.
  2. SRI T. ESWARA RAO, S/O APPARAO, OCC.BUSINESS PROPR.,
     M/S SPECIALITY DRUGS D.NO.49-24-1/60 , SHOP NO.201, B.K.
     TOWERS, AKKAYYAPALEM VISAKHAPATNAM.
                                           ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
                                  AND
  1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by the Public Prosecutor
     High Court of Andhra Pradesh
                                      ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
     1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
     1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:
ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking

quashment of the proceedings against them in S.C.(MU) No.56 of 2024 on the

file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam registered for

the contravention of Sections 18(a)(vi), 18B, 22(1) (cca) read with Rule

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C‘
2

65(5)(1) punishable under Sections 27(d), 28-A and 22 (3) of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Act, 19402.

2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup, learned counsel for the Petitioners and

Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Drug

Inspector in the instant case is incompetent for the search of the shop of the

Petitioners and seizure of the drugs. Learned counsel would further submit

that the complaint has to be filed before the Special Court. It is submitted that

the price for the alleged drug was not fixed by the Government and the same

is not a scheduled drug. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are

no grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioners and hence, the

same are liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the

Drug Inspector had obtained permission from the Director General, Drugs &

Copyrights, Drugs Control Administration, Guntur to complete the

investigation. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that

no separate G.O is required to the Drug Inspector to conducting investigation

in the present case and the Drug Inspector is has jurisdiction over the entire

State of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted that, there are specific allegations

against the Petitioners and the genuineness of the said allegations have to be

decided during trial. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

2 for short ‘Drugs Act‘
3

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both

the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of
proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in
S.C.(MU) No.56 of 2024 on the file of the Court of II
Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam?

Determination by the Court

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages

that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to

make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the

Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to

secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not

functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its

powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and

circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling

reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against

sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

7. A bare perusal of the complaint would disclose that, on 17.04.2021, on

receipt of information, L.W.1 – R.Lalita, the Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam

(Mfg) along with L.W.2 – N.Yugandhar Rao, the Drugs Inspector, Narsipatnam

along with the mediators inspected the premises of Accused Nos.1 and 2 and

on enquiry, Accused No.2 had failed to produce sale bills for 36 Covifor 100

mg injections. On further enquiry, Accused No.2 stated that he sold 36

injections directly to the patients for Rs.7,000/- per injection without issuing
4

sale bills. After completion of necessary formalities, having found that

Accused No.2 purchased 102 Covifor 100 mg injections which is anti-viral

drug in Covid-19 treatment and failed to produce sale bills for 36 injections

and the same were sold in Black Market at a higher price in the Pandemic

situation and lodged a complaint for violation of Sections 18-B and 22(1)(cca)

of the Drugs Act.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Drug

Inspector was transferred and posted as Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam

(Mfg) and she is competent to conduct investigation relating to manufacturing

or drugs but not for sale of drugs. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor that the Drugs Inspector had obtained permission

from the Director General, Drugs & Copyrights, Drugs Control Administration,

Guntur to conduct investigation and no separate G.O is required. As seen

from the material placed on record, as per G.O.Ms.No.71, dated 25.05.2013

the Drugs Inspector in the present case was appointed as Drugs Inspector for

the entire State of Andhra Pradesh to perform functions under the provisions

of the Drugs Act, and thereafter she was transferred and posted as Drugs

Inspector, Visakhapatnam (Mfg), Visakhapatnam District vide

Proc.R.C.No.3243/E1/2019. It is the further contention of the learned counsel

for the Petitioners that the complaint has to be filed before the Special Court

and that the price for the alleged drug was not fixed by the Government and

the same is not a scheduled drug.

5

9. On perusal of the above rival contentions, this Court is of the view that

there are disputed facts and factual aspects which have to be decided during

trial. If the Petitioners are of the view that they did not contravene the

provisions under Drugs Act, it is open to them to establish the same during

trial. Since the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners

are touching the facts of the case, this Court does not intend to give any

opinion on such facts and the trial Court shall independently examine the

evidence placed before it, for the purpose of coming to a just conclusion. This

Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section

482 Cr.P.C., and hence, the petition deserves dismissal.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:21.01.2025
Dinesh
6

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.10050 of 2022

Dt.21.01.2025

Dinesh