Drugs & Cosmetics Act | No Prosecution For Seeking Information U/S 18-A When It Is Already Available With Drug Inspector: J&K High Court

Section 18-A mandates that any individual who is not the manufacturer or an authorized distributor of a drug or cosmetic must, upon request, provide the Inspector with the name, address, and other relevant details of the person from whom they acquired the drug or cosmetic.

In allowing a plea of a store keeper working at Government Psychiatric Hospital Srinagar Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,

“.. On account of availability of the information required under Section 18-A of the Act had been already with the complainant- respondent herein, and under the said circumstances seeking such an information from the petitioner herein at a later stage i.e. after receipt of such an information, was unnecessary and uncalled for”.

Petitioner Syed Sareer Ahmad Andrabi was implicated for allegedly failing to disclose the particulars of the supplier of a certain batch of drugs. This accusation stemmed from an earlier direction for reanalysis of the drug batch, which subsequently failed to meet quality standards, leading to the filing of the complaint.

The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the complainant, a Central Government agency, to investigate and prosecute offences within Jammu & Kashmir, arguing that only the CBI could do so for limited purposes.

It was further argued that the necessary information was already available to the complainant, making the request for the same from the petitioner redundant and unnecessary.

The petitioner also pointed out procedural flaws, including the filing of the complaint by an attorney without firsthand knowledge and the lack of examination of the complainant before taking cognizance.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal complaint and related proceedings.

Court's Observations:

Addressing the preliminary objection of the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the petition Justice Wani maintained,

“…that the nomenclature under which the petition is filed is not quite relevant and does not debar the Court from exercising jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is special procedure prescribed which procedure is mandatory in nature”.

Coming on to the merits, the court noted that the information required under Section 18-A of the Act was already with the complainant, making subsequent demands for the same unnecessary.

The Court remarked, "seeking such an information from the petitioner herein at a later stage i.e. after receipt of such an information, was unnecessary and uncalled for".

The Court ruled that even if the petitioner had failed to disclose the information again, it could not be deemed an offence under Section 18-A. Therefore, the allegation was "misconceived and legally untenable".

Highlighting the procedural lapses in the summoning order, Justice Wani noted that the Magistrate had failed to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and did not take the specific allegations into consideration.

Citing the Supreme Court judgment in "Pepsi Food Limited and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors", the Court emphasized the seriousness of summoning an accused in a criminal case and the necessity for a magistrate to carefully scrutinize the evidence before doing so.

In light of these observations the court quashed the complaint and the proceedings initiated thereon including the impugned order.

Case Title: Syed Sareer Ahmad Andrabi Vs Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 195

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment