M/S. Talli Godavari Fine ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1277 AP

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

        TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION NO.75 OF 2019

ORDER:-


     This Transfer Criminal Petition is filed under Section 407 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking

withdrawal of C.C.No.439 of 2019 from the file of II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, West Godavari District

and transfer the same to the Court of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District.


2.   The case of the petitioners in brief is:

     A1 is company, A2 is Director who has no license to

manufacture the drugs and A3 is a company represented by its

Managing Director A4, who is licensed manufacturer of Drug

Oxolamine Citrate for export purpose along with other drugs. On

13.07.2017 on credible information the Drugs Inspector along with

his staff inspected A1-company and asked about the produce

called HMC with code 1019 also called Oxolamine Citrate

manufacture and supplied to A3. A2 informed that they are

obtaining all the raw material required for the manufacture of

HMC 1019 from A3 and in their factory they are manufacturing as

intermediate drug. A1 does not possess license to manufacture

any type of drug. Thus, A1 and A2 contravened Section 18(c) of the

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 i.e. manufactured and distributed

the drug Oxolamined Citrate without having drug manufacturing

license which is punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act and

also contravened section 18(b) of the Act, punishable under
                                   2



Section 27(d) of the Act. The further case of the petitioners is that

pursuant to registration of the above crime inspection was

conducted in the petitioners' place on 13.07.2016 whereas the

inspection in Jagaiahpeta took place on 12.07.2016 basing on

which crime No.544 of 2018 was registered. As such it is nothing

but the continuous offence where petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are

located at different places, two crimes have been registered and

two cases are pending before two different places. Therefore, the

trial of both the cases has to be conducted by the same Court so

that just adjudication and conclusion can be arrived at and if the

trial in both the cases is conducted independently there is

possibility that two different verdict can be invited for the very

same offence which causes hardship to the petitioners. Hence, he

prays to grant the relief as prayed for.


3.     Heard Smt. Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-state.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

evidence to be lead on behalf of the prosecution as well as the

defence is one and the same in both the cases since two crimes are

registered as continuation of one another with same facts as such

both need to be tried together.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on

Mandru Salmon Raju vs. State of A.P.1 wherein it is alleged that

Tr.CRL.P.No.1419 of 2018 Tr.CRL.P.No.120 of 2018 and Tr.Crl.P.No.133 of 2018

since the crimes mentioned therein arise out of same crime and

the accused are common, it will be difficult for the accused to

appear before the courts in both the Districts at a time on one and

the same day and if the cases are tried separately there is

likelihood of conflicting judgments. Accordingly the composite

High Court allowed the transfer petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

facts of the above case squarely apply to the present case as the

crime in this case is continuation of the offence as the first raid

was conducted on 12.07.2016 at petitioner No.3-company and

basing on the information given by the Drugs Inspector, raid was

conducted at petitioner No.1-company on 13.07.2016. Therefore, it

is just and necessary that trial of both the cases is conducted by

the same Court for just adjudication and conclusion. Hence, the

transfer petition may be allowed.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition

on the ground that it will be difficult for the prosecution if the

cases are transferred and prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners

two crimes are registered at different places on continuation of an

offence. The evidence to be lead on behalf of the prosecution as

well as the defence is one and the same in both the cases.

Therefore, taking into consideration all these apsects, this Court

deems it appropriate to allow the transfer petition.

9. Accordingly, this transfer criminal petition is allowed.

C.C.No.439 of 2019 is withdrawn from the file of II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovvur, West Godavari District

and transferred to the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Jaggaiahpeta, Krishna District.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J Date :02.03.2021 IKN

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

(Allowed)

TRANSFER CRIMINAL PETITION No.7 OF 2020

03.02.2021

IKN