APHC010424362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8523/2025 Between: 1. SAI BALAJI MEDICALS AND SURGICAL DISTRIBUTORS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, P.KISHORE GUPTA, S/O.BHAGAVATHAM GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, O/O.D.NO.7-1-17, MADA STREET, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. P.KISHORE GUPTA,, S/O.BHAGAVATHAM GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O.PLOT NO.301, TWILIGHT TOWERS, KK LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. M/S.JYOTHI KRISHNA MEDICALS AND FANCY STORE, , REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR T.PURUSHOTHAM, S/O.LATE T.CHENGALRAYULU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-93, BAZAAR STREET, BHAKARAPETA VILLAGE CHINNAGOTTIGALU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. T.PURUSHOTHAM,, S/O.LATE T.CHENGALRAYULU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-93, BAZAAR STREET, BHAKARAPETA VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. 2. VALIVEDU KEERTHANA, W/O.V.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, DRUGS INSPECTOR, R/O.D.NO.2-157/5, 3RD FLOOR, WARD NO.22, THIMMINALDUPALYAM, KRAKAMBADI ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. SRINIVASU L Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The instant petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the Petitioners / Accused Nos.11 to 14, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in D.C.S.C.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor for the offences under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) and Section 17-B(d), 17-B(c), 18(c), 22(1) (cca) punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), (c) and (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. Sri L.Srinivasu, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are the owners of the medical stores having got valid licence for selling medicines. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are not the manufacturers of the alleged drug and that the Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that the subject matter is squarely covered by the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2928 of 2019, wherein, in the similar circumstances, the proceedings against Accused Nos.4 to 6 in C.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the Court of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, have been quashed. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners herein, who are the Medical Store owners, are also on the same footing. 3. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 4. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the Order dated 06.08.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2928 of 2019, is extracted hereunder: <From the above, it is clear that if a person other than manufacturer proves that the drug was properly stored and acquired from the licensed manufacturer, he cannot be made liable. The manufacturer is responsible for the Product. It is not the case of the complainant that these petitioners had knowledge about the drug being not in conformity with standard quality. Further, it is not the case of the complainant that A-1 was not a licensed manufacturer. Since the petitioners are only distributors of the drug and dealing with the same, having acquired the same from a licensed manufacturer, in terms of the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act, the proceedings against them cannot be permitted to continue for the aforementioned reasons.= 5. In the instant case also, the Petitioners herein are not the manufacturers of the subject drug and are running the Medical Stores with valid license for selling the medicines. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the order referred to supra, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioners herein, who are not the manufacturers of the subject drug, is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, it is a fit case for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.11 to 14. 6. According, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners / Accused Nos.11 to 14 in D.C.S.C.No.2 of 2020 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, are hereby quashed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:01.12.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.8523 of 2025 Dt.01.12.2025 Dinesh