M/S Seasons Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 348 AP

         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

                       MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No.7673 of 2021

                                 PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                             Office
        DATE                                  ORDER
No                                                                              Note

2.    25.01.2022   CMR, J
                   8




                          Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken
                   notice for the 1st respondent/State and requests time to

obtain instructions.

Issue notice to respondent No.2.

Post the matter after four (4) weeks.

________ CMR, J I.A.No.1 of 2021

The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.43 of 2021 on the file of the learned First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, Krishna District. They have been facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 18(a)(i) r/w Section 16(i)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. The said complaint was filed against the petitioners by the Drugs Inspector said to have been appointed under Section 21 of the Act stating that he is authorized to launch prosecution against the petitioners.

The petitioners challenge the legal validity of the prosecution launched against them on the ground that the Inspector, who has filed the complaint, is not competent to collect the samples and he is not authorized to file any such complaint as notification issued in his favor under Section 21 of the Act is not valid under law. According to them, the area is to be specified appointing the complainant as an Inspector to a particular area under Section 21 of the Act and as the notification in question was issued specifying the entire State of Andhra Pradesh as the area on which he can exercise jurisdiction that the same is not valid under law. In support of their contention, they relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the case of M/s Gaba Pharamaceuticals Vs. the State of Andhra Pradesh1 wherein this Court held that specific area is to be specified in the notification and if the notification is issued appointing the inspector conferring jurisdiction on him for the entire State of Andhra Pradesh that the same is not valid under law. Therefore, the very competency of the complainant herein, who filed the complaint, is questioned and in view of the aforesaid judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners could make out a prima facie case to examine in the main criminal petition whether the very launching of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in the given facts and circumstances of the case are valid under law or not.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be stay of further proceedings in C.C. No.43 of 2021 on the file of the learned First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid, Krishna District, till the next date of hearing.

________ CMR, J AKN

Criminal Revision Case No.1121 of 2002, dated 06.04.2006