The High Court · 2025

2. The Drugs lnspector, Malka,igiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri, District, Rep by the Public Piosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, At Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No. 15 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, against the petitioners, in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in S.T.C.No. 15 ot2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C SHARAN REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER ---7 (- THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.2938 of 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them upon a private complaint lodged by the Drug inspector for the offences under section 11 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the violation of paragraphs 14(1) & (2) of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of S.O.1221(E), dated 15.05.2013 of Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of lndia rlw Para 16(4) of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of S.O.1221 (E), Dated: 15.05.2013 of Ministry or Chemicals & Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceutials, Government of lndia read with section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in S.T.C.No.15 of 2023 before the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District.

2. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.M.Ramachandra \3 .t 2 Reddy, learned Additional public prosecutor, on behalf of respondents. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts in nut shell are that on 24.11.2015 the Drug lnspector inspected the premises of some medical pharmacies and observed that ,Doxeebest, tablets (Doxycycline Hyclate Tablets USp 100 mg.) which were manufactured by the 1"t petitioner stocked for sale bearing Maximum Retail Price of Rs.31.00 per g tablets i.e. Rs.3.g7 per tablet. But the ceiling price+value added tax for the drugs in question is Rs.8.736 per 8 tablets i.e. Rs.1.092 per tablet as per the Gazette S.O.No.619(E), dt.26.02.2}1S. Therefore, the drugs were seized under cover of a seizure memo and deposited the same before the Court on 16.12.2015. After collecting information from various distributors and concluded that the drugs were manufactured by the 1"t petitioner and filed the complaint on 1g.03.2023.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is no material to establish that the 2nd petitioner is responsible for the day to day business of the 1"t petitioner company when the drugs in question were manufactured and ----- 3 sold with an MRP in excess of that prescribed by the Central Government. As per Section 10 of the Essential commodities Act, when an offence is alleged to have been committed by a company, it is only the person who was in charge for the conduct of business of the company at the time of the contravention, who can be prosecuted. lt is submifted that paragraph 14(2) ot the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of

5.0.1221 (E), dt. 15-05-2013 states that the overcharged amount along with interest can be recovered by the Government in view of violation of paragraph 14(1). When that is the case, there is no occasion or requirement for the 2nd respondent to launch prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act after a delay of 8 years. When the punishment is prescribed in the Drugs (price Control) Order, 2013 itself, the 2nd respondent is not justified in seeking alternate punishment by prosecuting the petitioners under the Act. Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any violation of paragraph 16(4) of the Order. The present prosecution is launched after 8 years and there is no justification for the 2nd respondent for not filing the complaint immediately. The undue delay violates the rights of 4 \= ,.1 the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia to speedy and fair trial.

5. He placed reliance on a decision held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasmukhlal D.Vora and another v. Sfafe of Tamil Nadul , wherein it was held as under- "25. There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the comptaint. As hetd by this Coutt in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihaf, inordinate detay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below: (SCC p. 153, para 7) "7. .-. Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. lf the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Coutt to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. lnsisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. lt is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if reasonable, plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it.' 23. ln the present case, the respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspect:,on, the show-cause notice, and the complaint. ln fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Courl to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the ciminal proceedings.

24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in sucf, cases, unexplained inordinate delay ot such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal comqlaint." Hence prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. t 120221 15 Supreme Court Cases 164 '(2002) 9 scc 147: 2oo3 scc (cri) 1093 5

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submifted that this is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

7. Rule 14(2) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 reads as under-

14. Fixation of ceiling price of scheduled formulations.- (1) The Government shall tix and notify the ceiting pices ot the scheduled fomulations in accordance with the provisions of the paragraphs 4 and 6, as the case may be, and no manufacturer shall sell the scheduled formulations at a price higher than the ceiling price (plus local taxes as applicable) so fixed and notified by the Government. (2) Where any manufacturer sells a scheduled formulation at a price higher than the ceiling price (plus local taxes as applicable) fixed and notified by the Government, such manufacturers shar/ De liable to deposit the overcharged amount along with interest thereon from the date of such overcharging.

8. On perusal of the record and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, apparently, it is evident that there is 8 years of delay, which remained unexplained by the prosecution, which infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings. As per Rule 14(2) of the control order, it is apparent that when a manufacturer sells a scheduled formulation at a price higher than the ceillng fixed by the Government, such manufacturer shall be liable to deposit the overcharged amount along with interest thereon from the date of such overcharging. -\ ,-r' \ 6 t

9. This Court observed that any undue delay in the adjudication of the proceedings would inevitably lead to the expiry of the seized medicines, thereby resulting in scarcity of the saici drug to the general public and rendering the same useless. ln such pircumstances, even where the delay is clearly established, it is deemed appropriate to levy the overcharged price with applicable interest under Rule 14(2) of the Control Order, rather than initiate proceedings against the petitioners

10. ln view of the above observations and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the judgment relied upon by him, this Court opines that this is a fit case for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners

11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, are hereby quashed 7 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ASS SD/-L.VIJAYA LAXMI NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII S c ON OFFICER To, Malkajgiri, Medchat-Malkajgiri District.

1. The Principal Junior civir Judge-cum-Metroporitan Magistrate at 2. The Drugs lnspector, Matkajgiri, Medchal Malkajgiri District 3. Two CCs to the PUBLTC PRO_SE_C_UTOR, High blurt at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One CC to SRt C SHARAN REDDY Advocite tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies TPK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0411112025 ORDER CRLP.No.2938 of 2024 li 1$ t';i iffi .\\ .. \'rr. '\', " .i. ,- '.'/ '\:,,:_-_ __-.-t '' CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED q