Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M/S. Sri Agpa Pharmaceuticals on 18 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1467 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1
to 4/A1 to A4 for the offences under Section 18(a)(i) r/w 18
and 34 punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic
Act, 1940 vide judgment in CC No.588 of 2006, dated
26.06.2007, the present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the Drug Inspector/P.W.1 is that on
16.12.2004 he visited the premises of M/s.VMR Agencies at
Warangal and picked up Reslox-L Capsules manufactured
by1st respondent/A1 of which the 2nd respondent/A2 is the
proprietor and sent it to the Drugs Control Laboratory. The
said sample was declared as 'not of standard quality' vide
analyst report dated 30.04.2005. Accordingly, on 16.05.2005,
P.W.1 addressed a letter to M/s.VMR Medical Agencies, who in
turn informed that the said drugs were purchased from 1st
respondent company. On 30.05.2005, the 1st respondent
confirmed the sale to M/s.VMR Medical Agencies and also
submitted drug licence. On further probing, the Drug
Inspector found that the 3rd respondent/A3 firm had
manufactured the drug and the 1st respondent/A1 firm had
distributed the said drug, which was found not of standard
quality. Accordingly, P.W.1 Drug Inspector filed complaint
dated 26.06.2006 before the I Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Warangal.
3. Having taken cognizance of the complaint, the trial Court
examined the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and the
gist of the allegations was informed to the respondents, who
have denied the same.
4. The Drug Inspector examined himself as P.W.;1 and
marked Exs.P1 to P26 during the course of his examination.
No defence exhibits or material objects are marked.
5. The trial court acquitted the respondents/accused for the
reason that, as the sale was completed at Madras, the Court
has no jurisdiction to try the case by relying upon the
judgment in Sumit Lal C. Shah v. State of Rajasthan reported
in 1984 Drugs Cases 54. Further the 4th respondent/A4
cannot be prosecuted as no proof is filed that he was
responsible for the day to day affairs of A-1 company.
6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the
Court cannot refuse to entertain the complaint on the ground
that the Court has no jurisdiction. Since the drug was seized
at Warangal, the complaint can be filed by the Drug Inspector
from where the drug was seized, as such, finding of the trial
Court is contrary to law and should be reversed.
7. As seen from the judgment referred to above in Sumit Lal
C Shah's case (supra), it is held as follows:
"Section 177 of the Cr. PC lays down that every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. This section is based on the general principle of law that all crime
is local. Since the medicine was not manufactured by the accused petitioners
within the limits of the local jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner,
it could not be tried by him as against the accused-petitioners. Sections
178 and 179 are of no help to the prosecution. The medicine was not sold by
the accused-petitioners to M/s Bordia Medical Stores at Nokha. The medicine
was sold to M/s Bordia Medical Stores, Nokha by M/s Rajesh Medical
Agencies, Jodhpur. The accused-petitioners nowhere come in picture in this
sale."
8. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, since the sale was
completed at Madras, the jurisdiction would lie at Madras.
There cannot be any doubt regarding the jurisdictional aspect,
as such, the complaint is without jurisdiction.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there are no merits in
the appeal by the State and liable to be dismissed and
accordingly dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 18.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1467 OF 2009
Date: 18.07.2022.
kvs
