I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10258 OF 2022 Between: Vetsa Venkata Ramana, S/o Venkata Raju Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business R/o 2-31, Rayudu Pakalu Road, Kolamuru Rajahmundry, East Godavari District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High court at amaravati. 2. The Drugs Inspector, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No. 3 in S.C. NDPS No. 02 of 2022 on the file of the Court of l-Additional District Sessions Judge Court, Kadapa. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in S.C. NDPS No. 02 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I - Additional District Sessions Judge Court, Kadapa. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli ,Advocate for the Petitioner and Public Prosecutor AP on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER the r' • -- APHC010699782022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] r^i WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 10258/2022 Between: VETSA VENKATA RAMANA, S/0 VENKATA RAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O 2-31, . RAYUDU PAKALU ROAD, KOLAMURU RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI . 2:THE DRUGS INSPECTOR, PRODDATUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1 .RAMALAKSHMANA REDDY SANEPALLI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in S.C.NDPS No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Court 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ m of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa registered for the contravention of Sections 18(c), 18(a)(i) read with Sections 17B and Section 22(1)(cca) punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), 27(c) and 22(3) 27(c) and 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics. Act, 1940^. Heard Sri S.Ramalakshmana Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioner v^ould submit that the G.O does not disclose the name of Respondent No.2, who is having jurisdiction to conduct raid in the shop of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the report of the analyst does not disclose that the alleged drug is spurious or adulterated. It is submitted that the subject drug i.e.. Oxytocin has not been banned by Government of India. Learned counsel would further submit that there is an abnormal delay of more than 3 years in submitting the complaint to the Court, in support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu^ and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1350 of 2020, dated 10.03.2022. 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that complaint would disclose that Oxytocin is mixed with other drug. There are specific allegations against the Petitioner and the genuineness of the said 2. 3. 2 for short ‘Drugs Act’ ^ (2018) 15 see 93 im Hence, prayed to dismiss the allegations has to be decided during trial, petition. Point for Determination 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 Petitioner/Accused No. 3 in . S.C.NDPS No.2 of 2022 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kadapa? 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 (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to ends of justice. A court \A/hile sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not Code or. secure functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and powers to do 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. It is alleged in the complaint that on 01.09.2018, on receipt of credible Respondent No.2 along with mediators inspected M/s.Sri Lakshmi information Ganesh Medical Agency (Accused No.1) and found certain drugs in a wooden box containing 8 bottles, which has no label and on questioning. Accused No.2, who is the Proprietor of A. 1-Agency stated that the bottles contain Oxytocin Drug which is used for animals to improve production of milk and he purchased the bottle for Rs.200/- and sells the same for Rs.300/-, but failed to produce records or bills with regard to the same. Further, Accused No.2 had stated that he purchased the said drug from Petitioner/Accused No.3. As such, they inspected the premises of the Petitioner/Accused No.3 confessed that he purchased the same from Accused No.4 and sold the and he also failed to produce the bills or records relating to purchase of the said drug. Hence, the complaint. who same 8. A keen perusal of the material on record would disclose that, the Complainant is the Drug Inspector appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs Act vide G.O.Ms.No.335, Health Medical & Family Welfare (L2), dated 24.11.2011 and as per the said G.O., he has jurisdiction over the entire State of Andhra Pradesh and is empowered to institute prosecution under Section 32 of the Drugs Act. It is further disclosed that, on receipt of the reply from Accused No.2, who is the Proprietor of A.l-Agency, wherein he disclosed that the subject drug was purchased from the Petitioner/Accused No.3 the Drugs Inspector, Proddatur along with Drugs Inspector, Rajamahendravaram visited the house of the Petitioner and served notice under Section 18A and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs Act and on enquiry. Petitioner in his reply dated 06.09.2018, confirmed the sale of the subject drug Accused No.2 and purchase of the same from Accused No.4 without any purchase invoices and that he does not having any licence for purchase and sale of the drugs. be held that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 distributed the subject drug without a valid drug license to Accused Nos.1 and 2 and thereby contravened Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs Act. from the State Analyst Report dated 27.09.2018, the Therefore, it can Further, as seen subject drug is a clolourless liquid with significant odour and it is positive for Oxytocin as per I.P. In the instant case, the drug Oxytocin is in white coloured unlabelled bottle of 100 ml containing red coloured caps. It clearly indicates 9, that the drug is substituted partly by another substance to make up the volume Petitioner/Accused No.3 failed to furnish purchase to 100 ml. Furthermore and sale record of the subject drug. The contention of the Petitioner that there is an abnormal delay of more than three years in submitting the complaint to the Court is not tenable. In the present case, the offence is contravention of Section 17B of the Drugs Act which is punishable under Section 27(c) of the Act. The punishment as per Section 27(c) of the Act is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extent to imprisonment for life and with fine 10. which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or three times the value of the more. Therefore, as per Section 468(2) drugs confiscated, whichever is Cr.P.C., as the imprisonment shall not be less than seven years, there is no limitation for filing of the complaint. It is the further contention of the Petitioner that as the subject drug is not banned by Government of India, the same is not spurious in nature and as 17B of the Act does not attract against the Petitioner. There is 11. such. Section T no dispute with regard to the fact that, only the drugs which are not banned by Government of India will be available in the market and they can only be taken for analysis. There is no rule that all the drugs that are not banned by Government of India are of standard quality and are not spurious in nature. In the case on hand, the question is regarding the quality of drug i.e., whether the subject drug is spurious in nature or of standard quality, circumstances, the status of the drug i.e., whether it is banned by the Government or not is not significant. In that view, the contention that as the drug Oxytocin is not banned by Government of India, the same is not spurious in nature, cannot be considered. The judgments replied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are with regard to the deprivation of the right of the Petitioner therein to send the sample to the Central Laboratory and the In such authenticity of the Drugs Inspector in launching the prosecution against the Petitioner therein. Whereas, in the instant case, the Drugs Inspector is empowered under G.O.Ms.No.335, Health Medical & Family Welfare (L2), dated 24.11.2011 and the dispute is not pertaining to sending of the sample of Central Laboratory. Therefore, the said judgments are helpful to the case of the Petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that there are specific allegations against the. Petitioner to attract the offences alleged against him and the same has to be proved during trial. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 12. 7 In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 13. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court Kadapa. 2. One CC to Sri. Ramalakshmana Reddy Sanepalli Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCS to THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 4. THREE CD Copies PNM NM '1. HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.10258 of 2022 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED