Pharma Deep Remedies vs. State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the petitioners had admitted through a letter dated August 4, 2018, that they had printed excess prices on the drug compared to the selling price fixed by the Government of India. This admission contravened para 24(1) of the Drugs Control Order, 2013, and Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court stated that when there is a specific admission by the accused, it cannot dispose of the criminal petition based solely on that admission. The case must be decided on its merits. If an accused confesses guilt, an appropriate sentence is required, and the court may refer to the evidence mechanically as a formality in support of the admission. The Court clarified that its approach would be different with an admission of guilt, and it cannot pass a sentence of conviction or acquittal based on such an admission. Such decisions must be made by the trial court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition was disposed of, directing the petitioners to face the trial before the trial court.

Facts

The petitioners, accused in C.C. No. 549 of 2018 before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, filed a criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings. The prosecution alleged contravention of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with para 24(1) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013. The Drug Inspector inspected the petitioners' shop on July 18, 2018, and found that the maximum retail price of the drug PD FLOX-L 500 exceeded the price fixed by the Government. Drugs were seized, and the petitioners were asked to provide clarification on price fixation and GST. The petitioners admitted to printing excess prices and provided relevant documents. The Drug Inspector filed a complaint to punish the accused for contravening the said provisions. The petitioners contended that the mistake was an oversight and that they had paid the excess amount, and the attributed sections were not applicable. The State argued that the drug was an essential commodity, the Drug Inspector was empowered to prosecute, and the petitioners failed to submit crucial manufacturing and distribution details. The State also asserted that the trial court had jurisdiction and the prosecution had sufficient evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for contravention of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, read with para 24(1) of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013, are liable to be quashed, considering the petitioners' admission of printing excess prices and their contention that the mistake was an oversight and that they had paid the excess amount. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the Drug Inspector should have considered their request and that the mistake in printing excess prices was an oversight. They contended that they had paid the excess amount to the department and that Section 23 of the Drug Control Order, 2013, allowed for recovery of overcharged amounts. Therefore, they prayed for the quashing of the proceedings. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argued that the drug in question is an essential commodity and the Drug Inspector is empowered to launch prosecution under the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013. They contended that the petitioners failed to submit complete details regarding the manufacturing and distribution of the drug. The State further argued that the trial court has competent jurisdiction and cognizance to decide the case on its merits, and the prosecution possesses all the evidence to prove its case. They prayed for the dismissal of the criminal petition.