Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Paladugu Venkata Girish vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 31 January, 2024
Author: K. Suresh Reddy
Bench: K. Suresh Reddy
1
KSR, J
Crl.P.No.9881 of 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
Criminal Petition No.9881 of 2023
ORDER:
Accused No.2 in Cr.No.313 of 2023 of Suryaraopet Police Station, NTR
Commissionerate, filed the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking
pre-arrest bail. The said crime was registered against the petitioner and others for
the offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short „NDPS Act‟).
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that, Accused No.1, who is none other
than the wife of the petitioner/A.2, is running a medical wholesale business, under
the name and style of „M/s Jaya Sri Medical Agencies‟. Accused No.3 is working as
salesman in the said medical agencies. The business of the petitioner is to supply of
medicines to its customers i.e., retail medical shops, medical practitioners, etc. The
licence is valid up to 02.08.2025.
ii) While so, on 27.07.2023, the Drug Inspector, Zone-2, Vijayawada, conducted
inspection and found certain irregularities and contravention of licence conditions and
the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is alleged that the petitioner said
to have sold huge quantity of different brands of Alprazolam tablets without issuing
proper sale bills. It is further alleged that they have purchased 868.28 grams of
Alprazolam tablets, produced fictitious sales bills and sold the said tables to the
unlicensed persons to a tune of 408.33 grams.
KSR, J
iii) It is further alleged that the accused failed to produce purchase and sales
bills for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 for verification at the time of the
inspection. On the basis of the said allegations, the present crime has been registered
against Accused Nos.1 to 3.
3. Sri C. Raghu, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned
counsel for the petitioner/A.2, strenuously contends that, it is Accused No.3 who was
appointed as salesman and who supplied the Alprzolam tablets to various retail
medical shops without the knowledge of the petitioner. He further contends that so
far as Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is not applicable to the facts of
the present case. In support of his contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Delhi
High Court in „Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arorara and another‟
(Crl.Rev.P.No.494 of 2007 dated 13.07.2011. He further contends that A.1 was already
granted anticipatory bail by this Court by order dated 13.10.2023 vide Crl.P.No.7247
of 2023. He further contends that at present, the petitioner is not running the said
medical agencies, as the licence was already cancelled by order dated 07.09.2023 and
as such, he requests this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail
application, of course, he did not dispute the factum of granting anticipatory bail to
Accused No.1.
KSR, J
5. This Court perused the entire material on record. In the judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e., Raj Kumar Arorara‟s case, para 24
reads as follows:
"24. Referring to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court noted that it was
not in dispute that the medicines seized from the clinic of the accused therein fell
within the purview of Schedules 'G' and 'H' of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was also
not in dispute that the same were mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act, but did
not find place in Schedule- I appended to the NDPS Rules. In this context, the Supreme
Court made a categorical observation as under:
...If the said drugs do not find place in Schedule I appended to the Rules, the
provisions of Section 8 of the 1985 Act would have no application whatsoever. Section
8 of the 1985 Act contains a prohibitory clause, violation whereof leads to penal
offences thereunder.
The Supreme Court further observed that:
"In view of the fact that all the drugs being Item No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 being
allopathic drugs mentioned in Schedules G and H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
indisputably are used for medicinal purposes. Once the drugs are said to be used for
medicinal purposes, it cannot be denied that they are acknowledged to be the drugs
which would come within the purview of description of the expression "medicinal
purposes.
Consequently, the Supreme Court was of the view that inasmuch as the NDPS
Act would in itself not apply, Section 37 thereof would, prima facie have no application
in view of the exception contained in Section 8 thereof read with the NDPS Rules.
Resultantly, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order of the High Court
granting bail."
6. In view of the above legal position and in view of the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court referred to by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Raj Kumar
Arora‟s case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with
certain conditions.
i) Petitioner/A.2 is directed to surrender before the Station House Officer,
Suryaraopet Police Station, NTR Commissionerate, on or before 9th
February, 2024.
KSR, J
ii) On such surrender, the Station House Officer, Suryaraopet PS is directed
to release the petitioner/A.2 on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs,.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two
sureties for a like sum each, to his satisfaction.
iii) On such release, the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
Station House Officer, twice in a week i.e., on every Monday and
Thursday, until further orders.
iv) The petitioner/A.2 is directed not to hamper the investigation and
tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
_______________________
Justice K. SURESH REDDY
Date: 31.01.2024
BSS
KSR, J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
Criminal Petition No.9881 of 2023
Date: 31.01.2024
BSS
