Sunny V. Ephram and Others vs The Drugs Inspector and Others

A.N. Venugopal Gowda, J—Respondent No. 1 is the complainant and the petitioners are accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in CC No. 60/2012, on the file of Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru. The said complaint was instituted on 11.05.2012 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging commission of an offence under Section 32(1) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act i.e., the offence as specified under Section 18(c) of the Act, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. Learned Magistrate having issued summons, this petition was filed by accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 to quash the proceedings of the said case, insofar as they are concerned.

Heard Sri. R. Shivcharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Krishna S. Dixit, learned Assistant Solicitor General, for the respondent and perused the record.

The complainant having received the information on 09.02.2011, that the accused M/s. Aster Medispro (P) Ltd., Bengaluru-71, represented by its Director are manufacturing the notified Medical Devices, without obtaining manufacturing licence as per Section 18 of the Act, conducted a raid on 11.06.2011 and the investigation team found the accused manufacturing the notified Medical Devices, catheters, without possessing the manufacturing licence as required under Section 76 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1975 i.e., in contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act. As a consequence, the said complaint was filed and CC No. 60/2012 having been registered, process was issued to all the accused.

The petitioners are the former Directors of M/s. Aster Medispro (P) Ltd., and they have resigned as Board of Directors of the said company on 18.08.2004. The Registrar of Companies has acknowledged the resignations of the petitioners. There being no dispute with regard to the resignation of petitioners on 18.08.2004 i.e., much prior to the information received on 09.02.2011 and the inspection conducted on 11.06.2011, there cannot be any prosecution of these petitioners for the alleged offences by M/s. Aster Medispro (P) Ltd., and its Directors, as on 09.02.2011 and subsequent thereto. In the absence of the information with regard to the resignation of the petitioners on 18.08.2004, they have been shown as Directors of accused No. 1, in the complaint filed on 11.06.2012. Since, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence by Accused No. 1 and its existing Board of Directors, since the petitioners had seized to be the Directors of Accused No. 1, these petitioners are entitled to the reliefs sought in this petition i.e., quashing of the pending proceedings, insofar as they are concerned.

In the result, petition is allowed and the proceedings in CC No. 60/2012, pending on the file of Special Court (Economic Offences), Bengaluru insofar as accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 is quashed.

However, learned Magistrate shall proceed with the matter, with expedition, as against the other accused and decide the case within a period of six months from the next hearing date.