Telangana High Court
Smt. Lataben Shaieshchandra Parikh vs The State Of Telangana on 27 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3736, 3844 of 2025 and 10866,
10870 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since these Criminal Petitions are challenging the
proceedings in C.C.No.5 of 2014, they are analogously heard
together and being disposed of by this common order.
2. Criminal Petition No.3736 of 2025: This Criminal
Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 to quash the
proceedings against her in C.C.No.5 of 2014 pending on the file
of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Hanumakonda.
3. Criminal Petition No.3844 of 2025: This Criminal
Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 to quash the
proceedings against him in C.C.No.5 of 2014 pending on the file
of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Hanumakonda.
4. Criminal Petition No.10866 of 2024: This Criminal
Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 to quash the
proceedings against her in C.C.No.5 of 2014 pending on the file
SKS,J
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3736, 3844 of 2025 and 10866, 10870 of 2024
of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Hanumakonda.
5. Criminal Petition No.10870 of 2024: This Criminal
Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 to quash the
proceedings against him in C.C.No.5 of 2014 pending on the file
of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Hanumakonda.
6. For the purpose of disposal of these Criminal Petitions,
the facts in C.C. No.5 of 2014 are taken into consideration.
7. On 27.08.2008, the respondent-the Drug Inspector,
Warangal (Rural), inspected M/s.Drugs Stores, the APHMIDC-
Drugs wing, D.No.1-7-668, postal colony, Subedari, Warangal
and obtained the samples of Ampicillin and Clavulanate
potassium tablets USP 375, B.No.BT-8083, manufactured by
accused No.1-M/s.BharatParenterals Limited, Haripura Ta Savil,
Vadodara, Gujarat (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') and
sent the said sample drugs to the Government Analyst, Drug
Control Laboratory, Hyderabad. On 01.10.2008, the Government
Analyst sent a report to the respondent-the Drug Inspector
Warangal (Rural) stating that the said sample drugs
manufactured by accused No.1-Company is not of standard
SKS,J
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3736, 3844 of 2025 and 10866, 10870 of 2024
quality as the samples do not meet the USP requirement in
respect of Clavulanic acid. Hence, a notice was issued to the
Executive Engineer, APHMHIDC-Drugs wing, Hanumakonda,
and in reply to the said notice, the APHMHIDC-Drugs wing,
Hanumakonda, furnished the purchase order and invoice bill of
accused No.1-Company in respect of the said sample drugs. On
receiving the same, a notice was sent to accused No.1-Company
for disclosing the manufacturing details of the said sample drugs
and in turn, accused No.1-Company challenged the same for
reanalysis of the said sample drugs at Central Drugs Laboratory,
Kolkata, wherein, it was again stated that the said sample drugs
are not of standard quality and the same are manufactured by
accused No.1-Company violating Section 34 read with 18(a)(i) of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act').
Therefore, charge sheet was filed vide C.C. No.5 of 2014 on the
file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Hanumakonda, for the offences punishable under
Section 27(d) of the Act.
8. Heard Sri G.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor for respondents-State.
SKS,J
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3736, 3844 of 2025 and 10866, 10870 of 2024
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
petitioners/accused Nos.3, 5, 7 and 8 are only partners of
accused No.1-Company and they are not responsible for the day-
to-day affairs of accused No.1-Company. He further submitted
that the petitioners would not be liable for the alleged offenses
just because they were partners of accused No. 1-Company. He
also submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with
the alleged offences as there are no specific allegations with
regard to the role of the petitioners in day-to-day affairs of
accused No.1-Company. In support of his submissions, he
placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in S.M.S.
Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Neeta Bhalla and another 1 and
prayed the Court to allow these Criminal Petitions by quashing
the proceedings against the petitioners.
10. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
for respondents-State opposed the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioners stating that since the petitioners are
partners of accused No.1-Company, at this stage, it cannot be
decided whether they are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of
(2005) 8 SCC 89
SKS,J
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3736, 3844 of 2025 and 10866, 10870 of 2024
accused No.1-Company or not. Hence, he prayed the Court to
dismiss these Criminal Petitions.
11. In view of the rival submissions made by both the
parties, this Court has perused the material available on record.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners are only partners of the accused No.1-Company
and they are no way concerned with the alleged offences. It is
noteworthy that the Apex Court in Neeta Bhalla and another
(Supra) observed that 'the liability arises on account of conduct,
act or omission on the part of a person and not merely on account
of holding an office or a position in a company.' Pertinently, in
the present case also, there are neither any specific allegations
regarding the role attributed to the petitioners in commission of
the alleged offences nor the prosecution has established that the
petitioners were in any way responsible or in-charge of the day-
to-day affairs of the Company. In view of the foregoing analysis
and peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court,
having respectful agreement with the view taken by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgment, is of the considered opinion
that just being partners with accused No. 1-Company does not
entail that the petitioners are responsible for the alleged
SKS,J
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3736, 3844 of 2025 and 10866, 10870 of 2024
offenses. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the
petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.
12. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the
proceeding against the petitioners/acScused Nos.3, 5, 7 and 8 in
C.C.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-
Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, are
hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 27.06.2025
gms
