RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the charges framed against the petitioner under Section 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by order dated 16.5.88 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara.
(2.) IT was first contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the allegations levelled by the complainant, Drug Inspector. No offence is made out to have been committed by the petitioner. As per the prosecution case the Drug Inspector, Bhilwara found the petitioner selling certain medicines at Medical Practitioners and Medical Store on 27.1.80. He was found selling drugs without licence and the some of the drugs sold by him were on analysis found to be of sub -standard. These are in the substance the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was the case of petitioner that he is not the manufacturer of the drugs but was merely selling the drugs found in his possession as an agent of Cash Medicos, Kota. According to the learned Counsel, in view of Section 19(3) of the Act the person who is not manufacturer is not liable for contravention of Section 18 if such person has acquired the Drug or Cosmetic from a duly licenced manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof and that it did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained that the drug was of sub -standard quality and that the drug while in his possession was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it. Learned Counsel's contention is that as prosecution has not alleged that none of the conditions mentioned in Section 19(3) does not exist, it must be presumed that no case against the petitioner for contravention of Section 18 has been made out. In his connection, the learned Counsel also relied on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. 1983 Supreme Court 67.
(3.) IN these circumstances he urges that the charges framed against the petitioner be quashed.;