CIVIL APPEAL 10445 of 2022 on 24 November 2011

ORDER:

TheinstantpetitionunderSection482oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973, has beenfiled by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1and2,seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.53[of][ 2015][ on][ the]file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram,East GodavariDistrict, for the contravention of Section 3(d) read with SerialNo.43of the Schedulepunishable under Section7of DrugsandMagicRemedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954\

2. Heard Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for thePetitioners andMs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent1/State.Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent1/State.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the name of theDrug Inspector, who has filed the present complaint, does not find place in thelist of Drug Inspectors mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.335, dated 24.11.2011assuch, he has no jurisdiction to file the complaintLearned counsel wouldfurther submit that, no offence is made out under Section 3(d) read with SerialNo.43 of the Schedule of the Act.The Scheduleitself revealsthatitISi:Rheumatism.Learned counsel would submit that, it is alleged that, during theinspection the Drug Inspector observed the words “Rheumatoid Arthritisonthe carton box and the label of the drug i.e., “My Dr.Pain Relief Oil”,Itisalleged that the label of the bottle comes under the definition of advertisementunder Section 2(a) of the Act and as such, the Petitioners contravened theSection referred to supra.Learned counsel would further submit that the labelwould show that the use of theoil may relief the pain dueto RheumatoidDrug Inspector, who has filed the present complaint, does not find place in thelist of Drug Inspectors mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.335, dated 24.11.2011assuch, he has no jurisdiction to file the complaintLearned counsel wouldfurther submit that, no offence is made out under Section 3(d) read with SerialNo.43 of the Schedule of the Act.The Scheduleitself revealsthatitISi:Rheumatism.Learned counsel would submit that, it is alleged that, during theinspection the Drug Inspector observed the words “Rheumatoid Arthritisonthe carton box and the label of the drug i.e., “My Dr.Pain Relief Oil”,Itisalleged that the label of the bottle comes under the definition of advertisementunder Section 2(a) of the Act and as such, the Petitioners contravened theSection referred to supra.Learned counsel would further submit that the labelwould show that the use of theoil may relief the pain dueto RheumatoidArthritis but it does not mean that it cures the disease.Learned counsel wouldfurther submit that, for one batch i.e., for the month of October, 2013 this labelwas there and from July, 2014 the said label was removed.Learned counsel,to buttress their contentions, has placed reliance on the judgment of HighCourt of Madras in Creative Diagnostic Medicare Pvt.Ltd., Vs. State ofTamilnadu^.further submit that, for one batch i.e., for the month of October, 2013 this labelwas there and from July, 2014 the said label was removed.Learned counsel,to buttress their contentions, has placed reliance on the judgment of HighCourt of Madras in Creative Diagnostic Medicare Pvt.Ltd., Vs. State ofTamilnadu^.

•4V'c

-A.

sh'.■'•'

4. LearnedAssistantPublicProsecutoropposedthepetitionandsubmitted that the name of the Complainant is mentioned in the list of DrugInspectors mentioned in G O.Ms.No.335, dated 24.11.2011 and would submitthat the Court may pass appropriate orders.

5. At this stage,it is apposite to extract Section 3(d) Drugs and MagicRemedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which reads as follows; “3.Prohibitionofadvertisementofcertaindrugsfortreatment of certain diseases and disorders.—Subject[to][ the]provisions of this Act, no person shall take any partinthepublication of any advertisement referring to any drug[in][ terms]which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that druafor—^

(a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or preventionofconception in women; or (b) the maintenance or improvement of the capacity[of] humanbeings for sexual pleasure; or

(c) the correction of menstrual disorder in women;[or]

2[(d) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention ofany disease, disorder or condition specified in the Scheduleorany other disease, disorder or condition (by whatsoevernamecalled) which may be specified in the rules made under this Act. ”

6. In Creative Medicare’s case (supra), the High Court of Madras while dealing the similar circumstances, held as follows:

10. Perusal of the alleged advertisement clearly showsthat the drugis the choice of treatment in managementofallergic rhinitis, allergic asthma etc., and it did not say that thedrug is the choice of treatment in curing allergic rhinitis, allergicasthma etc., if consumed. CrI.O.P.No. 26427 of 2013 The objectof the Act is that the advertisement in the label of the particulardrug should not mis-direct the consumers/ patients. Only whenthe advertisement in thelabel of the drug mis-directstheconsumers/ patients,it would attract the penal provision[under]the Act.

11. Hence in my considered view, the advertisement labelledin the carton of the drug CRED ISOL Aqueous allergen[extract]did not violate Section 3 (d) of Drugs and Magic Remediesin the carton of the drug CRED ISOL Aqueous allergen[extract]did not violate Section 3 (d) of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 read with Schedule (1)?/^Mag/c Remedies Rules1955 as alleged by the Drugs Inspector and thecomplaint is amis-conceived one.12.This criminal original petition is accordingly allowed andthe proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.4399 of 20130/7 the file of the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, SaidapetChennai,isherebyquashed.Consequently,connectedmiscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. ’’

If•ivnns

7. In the instant case, the label on the bottle relating to Arthritis does notindicate that it cures the disease, but it relieves the pain which may cause dueto Rheumatoid Arthritis”. As such, in view of the above legal position and thejudgment referred to supra,it is not in contravention of Section 3(d) of the Act.Insuchcircumstances.continuationof criminalproceedingsagainstthePetitioner,is sheer abuse of process of law.Therefore, the proceedingsagainst them are liable to be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction underSection 482 Cr.P.Cindicate that it cures the disease, but it relieves the pain which may cause dueto Rheumatoid Arthritis”. As such, in view of the above legal position and thejudgment referred to supra,it is not in contravention of Section 3(d) of the Act.Insuchcircumstances.continuationof criminalproceedingsagainstthePetitioner,is sheer abuse of process of law.Therefore, the proceedingsagainst them are liable to be quashed by exercising the jurisdiction underSection 482 Cr.P.C

8. In theresult, the CriminalPetitionis allowedquashing proceedingsagainst Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.53 of 2015on the file ofthe Court of Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Ciass, Amalapuram, EastGodavari District, forthe contravention of Section 3(d) read with Serial No.43of the Schedule punishableunder Section 7 of Drugs andMagic Remedies(Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.Petitionis allowedquashing proceedingsagainst Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.53 of 2015on the file ofthe Court of Additional JudicialMagistrate of First Ciass, Amalapuram, EastGodavari District, forthe contravention of Section 3(d) read with Serial No.43of the Schedule punishableunder Section 7 of Drugs andMagic Remedies(Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- A. VENU GOPAL RAOASSISTANTRARSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,

1. The Additional Judicial First-ClassMagistrate, Amalapuram, EastMagistrate, Amalapuram, EastGodavari District.

2. The Drugs inspector, Amalapuram

3. One CC toSri. P Sai Surya Teja, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra[Pradesh,][ at]Amaravati. [OUT]Amaravati. [OUT]

5. Three CD Copies

YM

PRK

Vna

Note: In Para No.8 at Page No.4 in the Order, dt.l3.12.2024[in][ CRLP][ No.l0445]of 2022, “Accused Nos.3 & 4” is deleted and added as[“Accused][ Nos.l][ &][ 2”][ as]per Court Order made in I.A.No.l of 2025 dt.20.08.2025[in][ CRLP][ No.l0445][ of]2022.

Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

HIGH COURTDATED:13/12/202420/08/2025

^^ANDS^mgn1 SEP 2025«»^. Current Section AMENDED ORDERCRLP.No.10445of 2022

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

hmt