The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay arr further proceedings, incruding the appearance of the Petitioners, in c c.No.5 of 2014 on the fire of the principar Junior civir Judge- cum- judicial First Class Magrstrate, Hanumakonda. ,against the Petitioner/ Accused No.7, in so f:rr as the Petitioner is concerned. CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3844 OF 2025 Between: Sri. IVahesh Pocnjalal Shah, S/o. Poonjalal Manik Lal sl'rah, Age about 60 Years, Occ. Business. R/o. G.T.Station Road Kalol, Baroda. Seventh Part in'.he deed of partnership ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 8 AND

1. The State of 1'elangana, Through Drug lnspector, Ther Drugs lnspector Warangal (Rura, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Tr:langana, Represented by, The Drugs lrrspector Warangal (Ru ra l) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS 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 C.C.No.S oI 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil .Judge-cum- judicial First Class Magistrate, Hanumakonda. against the Petitioner/ Accused No.B. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in tre circumstances stated in the [Vlemorarrdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, thr: High Court may be pleased to stay ;rll further proceedings, including the appearance of the Petitioners, in C.C.No.5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- cum- .ludicial First Class Magistrate, Hanurnakonda., against the Petitioner/ Accused No.8, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. CRIMINAL PETITION No: 10866 OF 2024 Between: Smt. Lataben Slraieshchandra Parikh, D/o- Shailesh Parikh. about 50 Years, Occ Business R/o. Bhagwati Paril OId Qadra Road, Baroda, Fourth Part in the deed of partnership AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. S 1 The state of relangana, Through Drug rnspector, The Druqs rnsoector Warangat (Rurat, Re[. by'its pubiic pros"ecuto?, tiiqn c"rrti"]?""b"ffJ';i Telangana, High Couh, Hyderabad. The State of Telanoana Represented by, The Drugs. lnspector Warangal (R ura l). 2 ...RESPONOENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under section s2g of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the l\/emorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c. c. No. 5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge- cum- judicial First class Magistrate, Hanumakonda. against the Petitioner/ Accused No. 5. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to stay arr further proceedings, incruding the appearance of the Petitioners, in c. c. No. 5 of 2014 on the file of the principal Junior civil Judge- cum- judicial First class Magistrate, Hanumakonda., against the petitioner/ Accused No. 5, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: {0870 OF 2024 Between: Sri. Rameshbhai Himma al Desai, S/o. Himma al Deasi, about 60 years, Occ- Busines- R/o.'lg,Prumal park Society, O.S.panigate, Eiaroda. Second Part in the deed of partnership AND ...PETtTtONER/ACCUSED No. 3 1 The State of Telanoana Ihrough Drug lnspector, The Drugs lnspector Warangal Rgp Oy its"pubtic eroseEutoi. iigh C5;,r'i;;tre State 6irei;;;;;; High Court, Hydeiabad.

2.TheStateofTt:langana,Representedby,TheDrugslnspectorWarangal (Ru ral) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the [/lemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in c.c.No.S of 2014 on the file of the principal Junior ctvil ,Judge-cum- judicial First class Magistrale, Hanumakonda. against the Petitioneri Accused No.3. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Mernorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay ,rll further proceedings, including the appearance of the Petitioners, in c.c Ncr 5 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior civil Judge- cum- judicial First c)lass Magistrate, Hanumakonda-, agairrst the Petitioner/ Accused No.3. in so f;:r as the Petitioner is concerned' These Petitions, coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the argunrents of Sri sunil Gawasane, Advocate for the Petitioner and sri M. Vivekanand;a Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondents The Court made the lollowing: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.37 36, 3844 of 2o.25 end 10866, 1O87O of2024 COMMON ORDER: Since these Criminal petitions are challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.S 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.S of 2Ol4 pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Ciass, Hanumakonda. a.) Criminal Petition No.3844 of 2o252 This Criminat Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.S of 2OI4 pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda. 4 Criminal Petition No.1O866 of 2024: This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioner/accused No.5 to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.S of 2Ol4 pending on the hle .- 2 CRtLttNAL PElfflON Nos.3736, 3A44 a,'2025 aul )Oa66 1OA7Oof2O2a of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda. 5 Criminal Petition No. 1O87O of 2024. 'lhis Criminal Petition is lilerl by the petitioner/ accused No.3 to quash the proceedings agrinst him in C.C.No.S of 2Ol4 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.OB.2OO8, the respondent-the Drug Inspector, Waralgal (Rurral), inspected M/s.Drugs Stores, tlee APHMIDC- Drugs wing, D.No.1-7-668, postal colony, Subedari, Warangal and obtained the sampies of Ampicillin and Clamlanate potassium tabiets USP 375, B.No.BT-8083, manufactured by accused No.1 I\{ / s. BharatParenterals Limited, Haripura Ta Savil, Vadodara, Guj rat (hereinafter referred as 'the Company') and sent the saicl sample drugs to the Government Analyst, Drug Control Laboratory, Hyderabad. On 01.10.2008, the Government Analyst sent zr report to the respondent-the Drug Inspector Warangal (Rr.ra1) stating that the said sample drugs manufactured by accused No.l-Company is not of standard 3 CRIMINAL PEfmON Nos.3736. 3a44 of 2025 atu1 i oa6, I OaTO 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, Halumakonda, and in reply to the said notice, the ApHMHIDC-Drugs wing, Hanumakonda, furnished the purchase order and invoice bill of accused No.l Company in respect of the said sample drugs. On receiving the same, a notice was sent to accused No.l-Compaly for disclosing the malufacturing details of the said sample drugs and in turn, accused No.l-Company challenged the same for realalysis 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 s€une 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 ActJ . Therefore, charge sheet was filed uide C.C. No.5 of 2Ol4 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda, for the offences punishable under Section 27ldl 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. 4 aRATIN 1L I'r-TtIOl No\ J 7 3L) 3nn' rl 2a2 3 onn 1aA66' lOA7o of 2O2a .- g . Learnerl counsel for the petitioners subm itted that the petitioners/ accused Nos.3, 5, 7 and 8 are only partners of accused No.1-C)ompany and they are not responsible for the day- to-day affairs of accused No. 1 Company. He furt.her submitted that the petiticners would not be liable for the alleged offenses just because they were partners of accused No. 1 Compaly. He also submitted that the petitioners are no way concerned with the alleged offences as there are no specihc alJegations 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 Cor-rrt in S.IW.S. Pharrnaceuticals Limited a. Neeta Bhalla and anotherr and prayed the Court to a,llow these Criminal Petitions by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

10. On the other hand, Iearned Assistant Pub,lic Prosecutor for respondents State opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners stating that since the petitioners are partners of act:used No.l-Company, at this stage, it calnot be decided whethe:r they are responsible for the day-to-day affairs of '(2005) 8 scc 89 I 5 CRTMINAL PETITION Nos j736, 3A44 of 2023 o^d I 0A66 I 0A70 oI 2O2a accused No. l-Compaly or not. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss these Criminal Petitions. 1 1. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the materia-l available on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are only partners of the accused No.l-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 tL.at 'the liabilitg aises on account of conduct, act or omission on the part of a person and not merelg on accouftt of tnlding an office or a position in a compang.' 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 ary way responsible or in-charge of the day- to-day a-ffairs 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 aJoresaid judgment, is of the considered opinion that just being partners with accused No. l-Company does not entail that the petitioners are responsible for the alleged 6 CRDIINAL I'ETtrlAN No.37Ja,.:ta14.[ )A25 atu) ]Oa66 l0a7Oof2024 offenses. Thereftre, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse ol process of law'

12. Accordingly, these Crimina1 Petitions are allovved and the proceeding agai.rst the petitioners/ accused Nos.3, :5, 7 and 8 in C.C.No.S of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge- Cum-Judicial l{agistrate of First Class, Hanurnakonda, are hereby quashed. Miscell aneous applications, if any pendirLg, sha'll also stand closed. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPY// seclrdn oFFrcER '1- The Principal Junior Civil J udge-cum-J udicia I First Class Magistrate, Hanumakonda

2. The Vl Additional Judicial First Class fvlagistrate at Warangal 3. The Drug lnspector, Warangal (Rural), Warangal 4. Two CCs to thr: Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

5. One CC to Sri {}unil Gawasane Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CD Copies VH/PSL V HIGH COURT DATED: 2710612025 ,l COMMON ORDER . CRLP.Nos.3736, 3844 of 2025 and 10866, 10870 ot 2024 IHE S T4 ( L) t 1 6 JUt 2025 * Or ,:),i fCH r9 * f z ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION'S ['xt