Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1408 (TS)

The State of Telangana v. Ritu

2025-11-06

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : K. SUJANA, J. These criminal petitions are filed under Section 483 (2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner- complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondents-accused on 23.07.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.3652 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.3653 of 2025 in R.C.No.01- Spl/Spurious/MS/DI/BPT/HYD/2025, Drugs Inspector, Begumpet Zone, Hyderabad for the offence under Sections 18 (a)(i) 22 (1) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. The said Crl.M.Ps, are filed by the accused seeking anticipatory bail wherein the case against the accused are that on 07.07.2025, the Drugs Inspector of Karimnagar sent a letter regarding the seizure conducted on 05.07.2025 at M/s. Venu Medical Agencies, Karimnagar. The seized drug, Levipil 500 mg (Levetiracetam Tablets IP), Batch No.GTF1540A, Mfg. Date 05/2024, Exp. Date 04/2026, was falsely labeled as manufactured by M/s. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Assam, under license No. 374/DR/Mfg/2013. However, the manufacturer confirmed that it had not produced this batch, rendering the drug spurious and in violation of Section 18 (a)(1) read with 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, Secunderabad, via sale bill No. 52084 dated 01.03.2025. Acting on this information, the Drugs Inspector along with panch witnesses inspected M/s. Ram Pharma and verified sale and purchase records and it was found that the proprietor had purchased and sold the spurious batch. Consequently, the inspector seized the relevant documents under Form 16, as the firm had contravened the provisions of Section 18 (a)(1) read with Section 17B(e), punishable under Section 22 (1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the accused before the trial Court is that the complainant had previously inspected the subject premises on 09.04.2024 and again after 07.07.2025, but no stock was found during either visit. The case was registered solely on the report from the Drugs Inspector, Karimnagar, dated 07.07.2025, and the information provided by M/s. Venu Medical Agencies. The counsel further stated that the accused have complied with all requirements and provided necessary information under Section 18 (a)(i) of the Act. 4. Counter was filed by the prosecution before the trial court stating that the accused were involved in selling and supplying of spurious Levipil 500 tablets to retail outlets, which eventually reached unsuspecting patients. The counsel further stated that the accused have complied with all requirements and provided necessary information under Section 18 (a)(i) of the Act. 4. Counter was filed by the prosecution before the trial court stating that the accused were involved in selling and supplying of spurious Levipil 500 tablets to retail outlets, which eventually reached unsuspecting patients. This act violated Section 18 (a)(i) read with Section 17B(e) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. As per the letter dated 05.07.2025 the seized batch (GTF1540A) supplied by the accused to M/s. Venu Medical Agencies was confirmed as spurious based on a comparative statement obtained from M/s. Sun Pharma. The sampling of the drugs was conducted according to the procedures laid down. Further, the seized drugs were declared as Not of Standard Quality, having failed the Assay test for Levipil 500 as per the Indian Pharmacopoeia, which was confirmed by the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad. This quality failure constituted violation of Section 18 (a)(i) read with Section 17B(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 5. After hearing the respective parties, the trial Court granted anticipatory bail to both the accused. Seeking cancellation of the same, the present criminal petitions are filed by the State. 6. Heard Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the petitioner-State and Sri Anshul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing 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 that 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 cancel 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 making certain allegations and also demanded certain documents and information, for which the respondents have complied with the same. A notice under Section 18A and 22(1) (cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was issued making certain allegations and also demanded certain documents and information, for which the respondents have complied with the same. The complainant also issued Form 35 i.e., inspection report dated 07.07.2025 wherein it is stated that basing on the letter received from Drugs Inspector, Karimnagar regarding seizure conducted at M/s.Venu Medical Agencies, Karimnagar they have inspected the accused firm and seized original bill of spurious drug Levipil 500 Mg tablets purported to be manufactured in India by M/s.Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd., Assam and sale bills of the subject drug are seized for violation of the provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Hence, the respondents have filed petitions seeking anticipatory bail which was allowed by the trial Court. It is further contended that the respondents-accused are complying with the conditions imposed by the trial Court and that the accused have not committed any offence as alleged and the same can be proved during the course of trial. As such, there is no illegality in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused. Hence, prayed this Court to dismiss these criminal petitions. 9. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and the material placed on record, the contention of petitioner is that the police have to collect relevant material from the respondents/accused such as purchase invoices, digital ledgers, courier manifest and bank trail, therefore 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 respondents is that there 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 shall stand closed.