IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENOER

CRIMINA L APPEAL NO: 1467 OF 2009

Criminal Appeal under Section 378(1) & (3) Cr'P.C against the Judgment
dated 26t0612007 in cc No.5BB of 2006 0n the file of the court of the 1"t Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

Between:

The State of Telangana, ReP. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad.
...APPELLANT (ACCUSED)
AND

1. M/s. Sri Agpa Pharmaceuticals, 60, Swamy Pandaram Street, Post Box No.
2415, Chiniadripet, Chennai-600 002 rep. by P. Anand Raj
2. P. Anand Raj, Proprietor 28, Narayana Naickan Street, P^udupet, Ctrennai.
3. M/s. Safe Lirie Foimulations, 7111, Lattice Bridge Road, Chennai, Rep. by
P.Ashok Kumar
4. P. Ashok Kumar, (Partner) No.28, Narayana Naicken Street, Pudupet,
chennai' ...RES'.NDENTS/ AccusED

For the Appellant : ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1467 OF 2OO9
JUDGMENT:
1. The State aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1

to 4/Al to A.4 for the offences under Section lS(a)(i) r/w 18

and 34 punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetic

Act, 1940 vide judgment in CC No.588 of 2006, dated

26.C'6.2OO7, the present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the Drug Inspector/P.W. 1 is that on

16.12.2004 he visited the premises of M/s.VMR Agencies at

Warrmgal and picked up Reslox-L Capsules manufactured

bylst respondent/A1 of which the 2"d respondent/A2 is the
proprietor and sent it to the Drugs Control Laboratory. The
said sample was declared as ,not of standard quality, vide
qnallTst report dated 30.04.2005. Accordingly, on 16.05.2O05,

P.W. 1 addressed a letter to M/s.VMR Medical Agencies, who in

turn informed that the said drugs were purchased from 1"t

respondent company. On 30.O5.20O5, the l"t respondent

conhrmed the sale to M/s.VMR Medical Agencies and also
subrrritted drug licence. On furper probing, the Drug
 2

Inspector founcl that the 3'd respondent/A3 firm had

manufactured the drug and the l"t respondent/Al

firm had

distributed the said drug, which was found not of

standard

quality. Accordingly, P'W' 1 Drrrg Inspector filed complaint

d,ated 26.06.2006 before the I Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Warangal'

3. Having taken cognizance of the complaint' the trial

Court

examined the accused under Section 25

1 of Cr'P'C and the
who
gist of the allegations was informed to the respondents'

have denied the same.

4. The Drug Inspector examined hirnself as P'W';l and

marked Exs.P1 to P26 during the course of

his examination'

No defence exhibits or material objects

are marked'

for the
5. The trial court acquitted the respondents/accused

reason that, as the sale was completed at Madras' the Court

hasnojurisdictiontotrythecasebyrelyinguponthe
reported
judgment in Sumit Lal C' Shah v' State of Rajasthan

in 1984 Drugs Cases 54' Further the 4th respondent/A4

\"
./'
 3

canr.ot be prosecuted as no proof is filed that he was

responsible for the day to day affairs of A-1 company.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the

Court cannot refuse to entertain the complaint on the ground

that the Court has no jurisdiction. Since the drug was seized

at Wrarangal, the complaint can be filed by the Drug Inspector

from where the drug was se2ed, as such, finding of the trial

Court is contrar5r to law and should be reversed.

7. As seen from the judgment referred to above in Sumit Lal

C Shah's case (supra), it is held as follows:

'({lection 177 of the Cr. PC lays down that every offence shall orclinarily be
inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed. This section is based on the general principle of law that all crime
is local. Since the medicine was not manufactured by the accused petitioners
wrthin the limits of the local jurisdiction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner,
it could not be tried by him as against the accused-petitioners. $gqgjg4g
lll8 and 179 are of no help to the prosecution. The medicine was not sold by
the accused-petitioners to M/s Bordia Medical Stores at Nokha. Thc medicine
wils sold to M/s Bordia Medical Stores, Nokha by M/s Rajesh Medical
Agencies, Jodhpur. The accused-petitioners nowhere come in picture in this
se Ie."

8. In the light of the a-foresaid judgment, since the sale was

completed at Madras, the jurisdiction would lie at Madras.

There, cannot be any doubt regarding the jurisdictional aspect,

as such, the complaint is without jurisdiction.
 4

g. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there are no merits in

the appeal by the State and 1iable to be dismissed and

accordingly dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous

applications, if any, sha-1l stald closed.

Sd/.A.V.S.S.C.S. M.SARMA
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPYII
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The l"tAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. (with records' if
any)
2. The Drug lnspector, Warangal(urban).
3. Two CCa to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad (OUT)
4. Two CD Copies
5. One Spare Copy
Kj
\
Y
 HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712022

ct 1Er4]N
L\
a)
llu .s 1;

s 3
)l
\\
J

JUDGMEI{T

CRLA.No.1467 of 2009

DISMISSIt\G THE CRL.A.

\.:'1
40
q\,-