The High Court · 2025

Order

These criminal petitions arc filed under Sc,: ion 483 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 b5 t re petitioner complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatoq' t arl granted to the respondents-accused on 23.O7.2025 in Crt.14 P.No.3652 ol 2025 and Cr1.M.P.No.3653 of 2025 Lrr R.C.No.01 Spl/Spurious/ MS/DI/ BPI /HYD 12025, Drugs, Inspector, Begumpet Zone, Hyderabad for the offence ur der Sections l8(al(ll 22 (1) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.

2. The said Crl.M.Ps, are hled by the ac: rsed seeking anticipatory bail wherein the case against the acc rsed are that on 07 -O7.2025, the Drugs Inspector of Karimnag: ' sent a letter regarcling the seizure conducted on 05.O7 20?I-' .t \4 /q \/r-n tr Medical Agencies, Karimnagar. The seized drug, - :vipil 500 mg (Levetiracetam Tablets IP), Batch No.GTF154tr, ., Mfg. Date 0512024, Exp. Date 04 12026, was false 11. labeled as manufactured by M/s. Sun Pharrna Laboratories Ltd., Assam, under license No. 37a IDR/Mfgl2Ot3. II manufacturer conhrmed that it had not producr )wever, the I this batch, 2 rendering thc drug spurious and in violation of Section 1E(a)( f ) read s,ith Section 17B(e) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The letter also stated that M/ s. Venu Medical Agencies had purchased the batch from M/s. Ram pharma, Secuncierabad, via sale bill No. 52O84 dated O 1.O3.2025. Acting on this information, the Drugs Inspector along with panch witnesses inspected M/ s. Ram Pharma and verihed sale and purchase records and it was found that the proprietor had purchased and sold the spurious batch- Consequently, the inspector seized the reievant documents under Form 16, as the lirm had contravened the provisions of Section t8(a)(1) reacl with Section 17B(e), punishable under Section 22(1)(ccal of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The contention ol learned counsel for the accused before the trial Court is that the complainant had previously inspected the subject premises on 09.O4.2024 and again after 07.O7.2025, but no stock was found during either visit. The case was registered solely on the report lrom the Drugs Inspector, Karimnagar, dated 07 .O7.2025, and the information provided by M/ s. Venu Medical Agencies. The counsel further stated that the accused have complied with all requirements and provided ireccssarrr inFrrrrnatinn rrnder Sectian l Cr.lfi\ ^f 1L- 6^+ ^ 3

4. Counter was hled by the prosecution before he trial court stating that the accused were involved in selling : nd supplying of spurious Lcvipil 50O tablets to retail outlets, '"r,1r reached unsuspecting patients. This act violated l ch eventually :ction 18(a)(i) read with Section 17E}(e) of the Drugs and Cosmer cs Act, 1940. As per the letter dated 05.O7 .2025 the seized bat(l r (GTF15a0A) supplied by the accused to M/ s. Venu Medical \gencies was conhrmed as spurious based on a comparatl 'e statement obtained from M/s. Sun Pharma. The sampling of r 1e drugs was conducted according to the procedr-rres laid down. Further, the seized drugs were declared as Not of Standard (r' rality, having failed the Assay test for Levipil 500 as per the Indian Pharmacopoeia, which was confirmed by thr Governrnent Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabacl This quatity failure constituted violation of Section l8(a)(i) rea: with Section 17B(cl) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

5. After hearing the respective parties, th: trial Courl granted anticipatory bail to both the accus,r 1. Seeking cancellation of the same, the present criminal pett: ions are hled by the State. 4

6. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioncr, state and Sri Anshul Agarwal, learncd counsel appcaring for the respondents_ accused in both the criminal petitions. 7 . The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that the trial Court has failed to observe that the spurious drugs pose significant threat to public health. Further the trial Court failed to see thal seizure of purchase and sale bills of spurious drugs from the accused premises which clearly prove the offence. The investigation is still in progress and some documents are to be collected. Hence, the accused are not entitled for bail and prayed to canccl the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents accused.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused filed counter contending that the respondents are proprietors of M/ s.Ram Pharma having valid licence issued by the Drugs Control Administration, Telangana which is valid till

21.04.2029. A notice under Section 18A and 22(1) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was issued makrng certain allegations and also demanded certain documents and information, for which the respondents have complied u,ith the same. The ,@_.9 -L =lg!tr ';. ' .;):z 5 complainant also issued Form 35 i.e., inspectio - report dated 07 .O7 .2025 wherein it is stated that basing rn the letter received fronr Drugs Inspector, Karimnagar regr rding seizure conducted at M/ s.Venu Medical Agencies, Kar mnagar the1. have inspected the accused firm and seized o iginzrl bill ol spurious clrug Levipil 5O0 Mg tablets purt rrted Lo be manufactured in India by M/s.Sun Pharma Lal,r ratories Ltcl., Assam and sale bills of the subject drug are sciz,: I for violation of the provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Hence, the respondents have filed petitions seeking ar r ,cipatory baiL which was allowed by the trial Court. It is furtl er contended that the respondents-accused are complying with r ne conditions imposed b1, the trial Court and that the accrr .ed have not committed anv offence as alleged and the same ( an be provcd during the course of trial. As such, there is ;t r iliegality in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-acl serl IIelr: praycd this Court to dismiss these criminal petitic i S.

9. Considering the submissions made by r- re respective \ parties and the material placed on record, the ;ontention of petitioner is that the police have to collect rel l -ant material ! . from the respondents/ accused such as purc-r rse invoices, digital ledgers, courier manifest and bank rr Li1, therefore 6 -\ granting anticipatory bail cause hindrance to the investigating agency and without considering the same, the trial Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused whereas, the contention of learned counsel for the responclents is that thcre are no grounds to cancel the bail and none of the conditions imposed by the trial Court are violated by the respondents_accused and that the respondents are cooperating with the investigating agency. Considering these circumstances, as there are no grounds in the petition that the respondents_accused are not cooperating with the investigating agency and have violated the conditions imposed by the trial Court, both these criminal petitions are dismissed. However, the respondents accused are directed to cooperate with the investigating. agency by submitting relevant records required for the purpose of investigation. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shali stand closed //TRUE COPY' SD/. P.C.SU ASSISTANT LEKH VI STRAR I SECTION OFFICER To, N

1. The lAdditional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. .) T,r,a r"t'-- +^ +l-r^ Dl rDl I i'\ n.ln crr,'\l vDLtv T l1v\)r:v lrytr VLJLI r tut U te Dtate Ol Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3 One CC to SRl. ANSHUL AGARWAL Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies TUPSL HIGH COURT DATED:06/1 1/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.12728 and 12730 ol2O25 l.1ED fA i I lr 2l]26 z Y 5'oi'_) 3 'l I I \ -'i1.1'h * ; ',rr1.1re -:=5'-' DISMISSING BOTH CRIMINAL PETITIONS, ,.1<r v