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