IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA TUESDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2228 OF 2022 Between: 1. Munish Salwan, S/o Amritraj Salwan, aged 52 years C/o Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Solan District, Himachal Pradesh-173205. ...Petitioner No. 1/Accused No.2 2. Amarjit Rai Salwan, C/o Sadhu Ram Salwan, Aged 77 years, C/oBaddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Solan District, Himachal Pradesh-173205. ...Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 3. Mithun Salwan, S/o Amarjit Rai Salwan, Aged 42 years Occ. Business C/o Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, Solan District, Himachal Pradesh-173205. ...PETITIONER No.3/ACCUSED No.4 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. Respondent No.1 ■ fK-' ♦■ :. • gV The Drug Inspector, Zone-ll, Vijayawada ■i ...RESPONDENT N0.2/DEFACT0 COMPLAINANT 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 to quash the proceedings in CC. No.25 of 2021 on the file of the 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cum 1®^ Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, including appearance of the Petitioners herein. I.A. NO: 1 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 CC. No.25 of 2021 on the file of the 1 St St Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cum 1 Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, including appearance of the Petitioners herein. This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P BADRINATH ,Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following ORDER: APHC010118132022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2228/2022 Between: 1.MUNISH SALWAN, S/O. AMRITRAJ SALWAN, AGED 52 YEARS C/O BADDI, TEHSIL NALAGARH, SOLAN DISTRICT, HIMACHAL PRADESH-173205. 2.AMARJIT RAI SALWAN, C/O SADHU RAM SALWAN AGED 77 TEHSIL NALAGARH, SOLAN DISTRICT, YEARS, C/OBADDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH-173205. 3.MITHUN SALWAN, S/O AMARJIT RAI SALWAN, AGED 42 YEARS SOLAN OCC. BUSINESS DISTRICT, HIMACHAL PRADESH-173205. C/O BADDI, TEHSIL NALAGARH, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI. 2.THE DRUG INSPECTOR, ZONE-II, VIJAYAWADA ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.PBADRINATH 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4, seeking 1 for short ^Cr.P.C’ 2 C.C.No.25 of 2021 on the file of quashment of the proceedings against him in Additional Judge-cum- Civil Junior of I Court I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada registered for the violation of Sections 18(a)(i) read with Section 16, 18(B) and Section 22(1)(cca) punishable under Sections 27(d), 28A & 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940^ the Heard Sri P.Badrinath, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners not responsible to the affairs of the Company. Learned counsel would further submit that there are two test reports in the present case, among which, in one test report the product is mentioned as tables and in the other report it was mentioned as capsules. As such, the report of the Government Analyst itself is tampered and cannot be taken as a conclusive evidence. Learned counsel would submit that the present complaint, which has been filed after expiry of the drug, is not maintainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Limited and Others^, Northern Mineral Limited vs. Union of India and another'^, judgment of Composite High Court of A.P., in Johnson & Johnson Ltd., vs. 2. 3. are 2 for short ‘Drugs Act’ ^ (1999) 8 see 190 (2010)7 see 726 3 State of A.P.,® and High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Rajesh Kumar and another vs. State through Drug Inspector Doda®. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there 4. 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 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 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 ^ MANU/AP/2247/2014 2017 see OnLineJ&K 381 4 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. In the instant case, Accused No.1 is M/s.Spanker Biotech Limited 7. represented by its Directors, who are Accused Nos.2 to 5. On 11.04.2017, the Drug Inspector picked up sample of the Drug Procomin 75 capsules, B.No.SPK-766, Mfg. date:03-2016 Exp.Date:02-2018, which was manufactured by A. 1-Company from M/s.Proteus Healthcare Private Limited in the presence of its GPA Holder Sri Mohammed Irfan and on 12.04.2017 handed over the sample to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada for analysis. Subsequently, on 09.05.2017 the test report has been received, wherein the subject drug was declared as “Not of Standard Quality” for the reason that the sample fails to meet the uniformity of weight mentioned under capsules. On receipt of a notice dated 10.05.2017 under Section 18A and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs Act, from the Drugs Inspector, the GPA holder of M/s. Proteus Healthcare Private Limited, had sent a reply dated 11.05.2017 stating that they had purchased the subject Not of Standard Quality drug from A.I-Company and also enclosed the purchase bills and distribution particulars. Subsequently, on receipt of a notice dated 24.05.2017 from the Drug Inspector, A.I-Company had sent a reply dated 27.06.2017 stating that they had manufactured and sold the subject drug to M/s.Proteus Healthcare Private Limited and also submitted the relevant records pertaining to the subject drug. On 24.08.2017, 27.12.2017, 06.06.2018 and 30.03.2019 the Drug Inspector sent notice to A. 1-firm requesting to confirm the manufacturing of the subject drug and to furnish the batch manufacturing record, constitution details and other details and also requesting to recall the subject drug from the market. But, no reply had been received from A. 1-firm. After receiving permission from the Director General, Drugs & Copy Rights, DCA, Chuttugunta, Guntur, the present case has been lodged against Accused Nos.1 to 5. A bare perusal of the material on record discloses that, after receipt of the sample of the subject drug from the Drug Inspector, and after conducting test, the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada had issued a test report dated 09.05.2017 stating that the subject drug was Not of Standard Quality as defined in the Drugs Act and the Rules made thereunder. After receipt of the said information, the Quality Control Department of the Company sent twenty capsules from the batch of the products for testing to the Government approved test house i.e., Auriga Research Limited, Himachal Pradesh and as per its report, the subject drug is of standard quality. In the meanwhile, in response to the notice sent by Respondent No.2, A.1- Company’s Unit Incharge Sri Nirmal Kumar sent replies dated 15.06.2017 and 17.06.2017 by furnishing the drug license details, permission from the competent authority and other details. In the said replies, he pointed out that, in the test report sent by the Director General Drug Control Administration, Guntur to the State Drug Controlling Department, Himachal Pradesh it was mentioned the produce as 1 x 5 x 10 tablets, whereas, in the test report sent to the Company it was mentioned as 1 x 5 x 10 capsules. Both the reports 8. 6 contain the same reference as 819/APDCL/2017. In such circumstances, there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that there is an anomaly in the Government Analyst Report, irregularity is pointed out by the A. 1-Company, that itself, is sufficient to send the sample of the subject drug to the Central Laboratory for reanalysis. However, in the present case, no such steps have been taken by Respondent No.2, which amounts to denial of the rights conferred under Section 25(3) of the Drugs Act. In Northern Mineral Limited’s case (supra), it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as follows: When such an 9. “22. From the language and the underlying object behind Sections 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also from the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that mere notifying the intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report of the Insecticide Analyst confers on the accused the right and clothes the Court with the Jurisdiction to send the sample for analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and an accused is not required to demand in specific terms that the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In our opinion the mere intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report, Implies demand to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis. ” 10. In Johnson & Johnson’s case(supra), the Composite High Court of A.P held as follows: “From the above decisions. It is clear that when right to analyze the second sample was lost due to inaction of the prosecuting agency, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, on a scrutiny of the material and on a consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that continuing the prosecution against petitioners will be a futile exercise and would amount to 7 abuse of process of court and that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be exercised.” 11. Further, the manufacturing date of the subject drug is March, 2016 and the expiry date is February, 2018 and the sample was declared as Not of Standard Quality on 09.05.2017. Therefore, assuming that the Government Analyst’s Report as conclusive, the complaint filed in November, 2020 that is much after the expiry date of the subject drug. In view of the above discussions and the judgments referred to supra, it can be held that. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint after expiry of the drug, which is impermissible, as it deprives the rights of the Petitioners under 12. the Drugs Act. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law and it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The 1®* Additional Junior Civil Judge, Cum 1 Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada St Additional 2. The Drug Inspector, Zone-ll, Vijayawada 3. One CC to Sri. P Badrinath Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies Cl^ HIGH COURT DATED: 18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.2228 of 2022 g( 0 5 AUG 2025 '-*<£SfATCaSS^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION