Sri. Shridhar V. Hubballi vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 8851 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Shridhar V. Hubballi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                    -1-
                                                                NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468
                                                            CRL.P No. 100768 of 2025


                        HC-KAR




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                      DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                             BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100768 OF 2025
                               (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

                       BETWEEN:

                       SRI. SHRIDHAR V. HUBBALLI,
                       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                       PROPRIETOR OF M/S. ESS VEE MEDICINES,
                       CTS-134/1/2/3, PATTAN BUILDING,
                       GR FL 29-KARNATAKA SHOP-1, CHANNAPER MAIN
                       ROAD, OLD HUBBALLI-580 024.
                                                                         ... PETITIONER
                       (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                       R/BY DAYANAND KADADEVAR,
                       DRUG INSPECTOR-3, DHARWAD CIRCLE,
                       HUBBALLI-580 001,
                       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
         Digitally
         signed by
         RAKESH S
                       HIGH COURT DHARWAD.
RAKESH HARIHAR
S       Location:
        HIGH
HARIHAR COURT OF
                                                                        ... RESPONDENT

KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH COGNIZANCE DATED 07.01.2023 TAKEN BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD ON 07.01.2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 18(A)(I), 18(C) R/W SECTION 17-B(D) PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 27(C) AND 27(B)(II), (D) OF THE DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940 IN SPL.C. NO.2/2023 AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.09.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Accused No.2 is before this Court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer

to quash the order dated 07.01.2023 passed by the

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in Special

Case No.2/2023, registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Section 17-B(d) and 18(c)

punishable under Section 27(c) and 27(b)(ii)(d) of the

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act of 1940' for short) and also to quash the entire

proceedings in the aforesaid case as against him.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The respondent herein had filed a private complaint

before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge, Dharwad against Sri. Gautam Jain and the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

petitioner herein contending that on 10.06.2021, when he

was on duty, he had inspected M/s. Aroodha Pharma,

Vidyanagar, Hubballi, and had found a batch of drug for

sale, namely 'Sterinova hand Rub, B.No.023, D/M-03/2021

D/E-02/2023'. Since the said drug was found to be

suspicious and it did not bear the manufacture license

number in the label, sample of the said drug was drawn and

on enquiry, accused No.1 had informed that the drug was

purchased by him from the petitioner. After receiving the

test report from the laboratory, since the sample drug was

found to be of not standard quality, the batch of drug which

was found at M/s. Aroodha Pharma, was seized under a

panchanama and after completing the investigation, a

private complaint was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2

before the jurisdictional Sessions Judge and Special Court,

for the aforesaid offences. The learned Special Judge, by

order impugned dated 07.01.2023 has taken cognizance of

the alleged offences and has issued summons to the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

accused. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 is

before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

complainant was appointed as an Inspector for Benglauru

Circle and his appointment was notified under a Gazette

Notification issued by the State Government on 06.12.2014.

Subsequently, the complainant was transferred to Dharwad

Circle under a Transfer Order dated 07.10.2020 but there is

no fresh Notification issued as provided under sub-section

(1) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940 which is published in

the Gazette Notification appointing the complainant as

Inspector for Dharwad Circle. Therefore, complainant was

not a competent officer as provided under Section 32 of the

Act of 1940 to initiate impugned criminal proceedings. He

has also placed reliance on Section 19(3)(b) of the Act of

1940 and submits that he cannot be held liable for

contravention of Section 18 of the Act of 1940.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

5. Per contra, learned HCGP, has opposed the petition. She

has placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High

Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.

Ghanshyam K. Zaveri and Another reported in 2000

SCC OnLine Bom 748 and submits that separate

notification need not be issued and published in the Gazette

once an officer is appointed and notified under a Gazette

Publication for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 21

of the Act of 1940. She submits that petitioner is the

proprietor of a wholesale medical shop and therefore, it

cannot be said that he did not know and could not know in

spite of reasonable diligence that the drug which has been

seized contravened the provisions of Section 18 of the Act

of 1940. Petitioner is the person, who has sold the seized

drug to accused No.1 from whom it has been seized.

Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

6. The first contention urged on behalf of the petitioner

about the requirement of publishing a separate notification

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

in the Official Gazette after an Inspector appointed under

Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940, is

transferred to another area has been considered by this

Court in the case of Vishwanath vs. The State of

Karnataka in Crl.P.No.103433/2024 and in paragraph

Nos.12 to 16, it has been observed as follows:-

"12. Section 21 of the Act of 1940, reads as under:-

"21. Inspectors.--(1) The Central Government or a State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be.

(2) The powers which may be exercised by an Inspector and the duties which may be performed by him, the drugs or classes of drugs or cosmetics or classes of cosmetics in relation to which and the conditions, limitations or restrictions subject to which, such powers and duties may be exercised or performed shall be such as may be prescribed.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

(3) No person who has any financial interest in the import, manufacture or sale of drugs or cosmetics shall be appointed to be an Inspector under this section.

(4) Every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and shall be officially subordinate to such authority having the prescribed qualifications, as the Government appointing him may specify in this behalf."

13. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940 provides that Central Government or State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint qualified persons to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or State Government. Sub- section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940 provides for powers to be exercised by an Inspector and also duties which are required to be performed and such powers and duties may be exercised or performed as may be prescribed. Therefore, the powers and duties of the Inspector may be prescribed under sub- section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940 and the order of transfer of an Inspector appointed under Section 21(1) of the Act of 1940 would come within

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

the realm of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940. Issuance of notification as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940, on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred is not at all practicable and if such an interpretation is made, the same would be unreasonable.

14. In the case of Ghanshyam (supra) under identical circumstances, the Bombay High Court after referring to Section 21 of the Act of 1940, in paragraph Nos.9 and 10, has observed as follows:-

"9. A close scrutiny of the wording used above would show that the notification in the official gazette is required for the purpose of the appointment of the person as a Drug Inspector for such areas as may be assigned to him by the respective Governments may be by a separate order. The initial appointment can be said to be valid if it is made by the Government by notification in the official gazette stating that he has been appointed as Inspector for such areas as may be assigned to him by the Government later on by a separate order. That subsequent appointment for a particular area need not be by notification in the official gazette.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

10. So far as the areas are concerned in which a Drug Inspector may operate will be covered by sub-section (2) of section 21 under which the powers of such Drug Inspector can be restricted by putting conditions, limitations or restrictions subject to which he can exercise his powers and perform his duties vested in or imposed on him by the other provisions of the Act. Thus, in my view, it is not imperative to mention the areas of operation of the Drug Inspector by notification in the official gazette under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the Act. In any event, the GR dated 17th October, 1983 transferring him to exercise powers as Drug Inspector in Mumbai would be sufficient compliance with sub-section (1) of section 21 as the said GR is duly notified in the official gazette, about which there is no dispute."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale and Another vs. State of A.P. reported in (2003) 8 SCC 559, in paragraph No.8 has observed as follows:-

"8. We have perused the notification of the Government of A.P. dated 16-9-1963 issued under the Central Act of 1954. As held by the High Court, in our opinion too, the

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

notification in question is issued in furtherance of the 1954 Act and on the directions issued by the Government of India with a view to control the advertisements of drugs in certain cases and to provide for matters connected with the Central Act of 1954. Para 2 of the said notification authorises the officers of the Drugs Control Administration, Drugs Inspectors appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs Act, 1940 and other officers mentioned therein to act under Section 8 of the Central Act of 1954 to seize and detain any document, article or thing which such officer has reason to believe to contain any advertisement which contravenes the provisions of the Act. The said notification also provides for obtaining the necessary previous sanction under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, wherever necessary. These provisions of the Act, in our opinion, as also the object of the notification clearly indicate that the Government of A.P. has issued this notification empowering all its Drugs Inspectors appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs Act to exercise the power under Section 8 of the Central Act of 1954 for the purpose mentioned therein throughout the State of A.P. and an inadvertent reference to Telangana

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

area in the preliminary part of the said notification, in our opinion, would not in any manner restrict the operation of this notification in other parts of Andhra Pradesh. Even otherwise, there is no other indication or purpose reflected in the notification why the State of A.P. would want to restrict the operation of the notification which is in furtherance of a Central enactment only to Telangana area of A.P. State, with no stretch of imagination we can conclude that the Government of A.P. intended to confine the operation to Telangana area of A.P. State. We are also of the opinion that giving a narrow interpretation confining the operation of the notification to a part of Andhra Pradesh would defeat the public purpose for which this notification is issued, therefore, such argument which would not subserve the public purpose in the interpretation of a notification, should be avoided, hence, we are in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the notification in question is applicable to the entire State of A.P. and the complainant in this case had the necessary authority to seize and detain any material which would indicate the commission of an offence under the Central Act of 1954 as

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

also to file a complaint as has been done in this case."

16. Therefore, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that complainant in the present case was not competent to initiate proceedings against the accused since no Notification as provided under Section 21 (1) of the Act of 1940 was issued, after he was transferred to Gadag Circle is liable to be rejected."

7. Insofar as the second contention urged on behalf of the

petitioner that in view of Section 19(3)(b) of the Act of

1940, he cannot be held liable for contravention of Section

18 of the Act of 1940, is concerned, as rightly contended by

learned HCGP, petitioner is the proprietor of a wholesale

medical shop and according to the prosecution, petitioner

had supplied the drug in question to accused No.1, which

was found to be of sub-standard quality.

8. Section 19(3) reads as follows:-

"19. Pleas.

(1) xxx

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

(2) xxx

(3) A person, not being the manufacturer of a drug or cosmetic or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of section 18 if he proves--

(a) that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof;

(b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic in any way contravened the provisions of that section; and

(c) that the drug or cosmetic, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it."

9. Petitioner is the agent for the distribution of the drug in

question and it cannot be said that he did not know and

could not know with reasonable diligence that the drug in

any way contravenes the provisions of Section 18 of the Act

of 1940. Therefore, the exception found under Section

19(3) of the Act of 1940 for holding a person not liable for

contravention of Section 18 of the Act of 1940, cannot be

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13468

HC-KAR

made applicable to the petitioner. Except the aforesaid two

grounds, the petitioner has not urged any other ground in

support of his prayer made in this petition. Therefore, I do

not find any ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly,

the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN / CT: BCK