Dealer prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act can proceed without joining the manufacturer as an accused.

A dealer may be prosecuted for alleged contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 even if the manufacturer is not impleaded as an accused. The Act does not bar prosecution of a dealer on that ground, and the limited statutory defence available to a non-manufacturer depends on proof of lawful acquisition, lack of knowledge despite reasonable diligence, and proper storage without alteration. That defence is a matter for trial after evidence, not for quashing proceedings at the threshold. Accordingly, criminal proceedings should proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer can be prosecuted for alleged contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 without impleading the manufacturer as an accused, and whether the High Court was right in quashing the criminal proceedings on that ground.

Analysis: The Act prohibits manufacture, sale, stock, distribution, and sale of drugs in contravention of its provisions. Section 19(1) excludes ignorance of the nature, substance, quality, or manufacturing circumstances of the drug as a defence. Section 19(3) provides a limited defence to a person other than the manufacturer or his agent only if he proves lawful acquisition, absence of knowledge despite reasonable diligence, and proper storage without alteration. The availability of that defence is a matter for trial after evidence, and the Act contains no prohibition against prosecuting a dealer merely because the manufacturer has not been joined as an accused.

Conclusion: The quashing order was unsustainable. A dealer can be prosecuted under the Act without the manufacturer being made a co-accused, and the prosecution must proceed to trial.

---