K. S. Murali Krishna finding that sufficient evidence did not exist to initiate the process of complaint against them.
The matter is currently pending.

The Drugs Inspector, Tamil Nadu filed a complaint dated June 18, 2013 against Optival, the directors of Optival, the
registered pharmacist and the assistant manager of the Kodambakkam branch, Chennai before the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate-IV, Saidapet, Chennai wherein the Drug Inspector alleged, among others, that (i) the
Kodambakkam branch had made a few sales without the presence of the registered pharmacist; (ii) that these sales
were made without being recorded in the prescription register, without maintaining proper records of purchase; (iii)
that these sales were made without any valid prescriptions , and that all such actions are in contravention of Section
18 (c) of the DCA read with the corresponding Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Prior to filing of the Complaint, a show-
cause notice was issued by the Drugs Inspector on March 21, 2011, against which Optival submitted a response on
February 6, 2012. The reply and the supporting documents and statements were found unsatisfactory by the Drugs
Inspector leading to initiation of the complaint process. Aggrieved with the initiation of the said complaint, Optival
and the directors of Optival have filed a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High
Court of Madras, among others, praying to quash the aforesaid complaint. Simultaneous, miscellaneous application
for staying the complaint proceedings was also moved by them. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras by way of order
dated March 5, 2014 has been pleased to stay the complaint proceedings. The proceedings against the directors of
Optival has been quashed by way of order dated February 22, 2019. The matter is currently pending.

The Drugs Inspector, Chennai filed a complaint dated April 9, 2014 against Optival, the directors of Optival and the
operation manager of the MedPlus Pharmacy Saidapet branch, Chennai before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-
IV, Saidapet, Chennai (“Metropolitan Magistrate”), wherein the Drugs Inspector allege, among others, that (i) the
Saidapet branch had made a few sales without the presence of the registered pharmacist; (ii) that these sales were made
without being recorded in the prescription register; and (iii) that sales in respect of certain schedule H drugs were made
without any valid prescriptions , and that all such actions are in contravention of Section 18 (c) of the DCA read with
the corresponding Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Prior to filing of the Complaint, a show-cause notice was issued by the
Drugs Inspector on May 20, 2013, against which M/s MedPlus Pharmacy, Saidapet branch, Chennai, through its
manager — operations, had submitted a response on September 4, 2013. The reply and the statements were found
unsatisfactory by the Drugs Inspector leading to initiation of the complaint process. On filing of the complaint,
summons dated May 30, 2014 were issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate to Optival, the directors of Optival and the
operation manager of the MedPlus Pharmacy, Saidapet branch, Chennai. Aggrieved with the initiation of the said
complaint, Optival and the directors of Optival have filed a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 before the High Court of Madras, among others, praying to quash the aforesaid complaint. Simultaneous
miscellaneous applications for staying the complaint proceedings and dispensing with the mandatory personal
attendance of the representative and directors of Optival under section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
respectively were also moved by them. The Hon’ble High Court by way of order dated July 2, 2014 has been pleased
to dispense with the personal attendance of the representative and directors of Optival. The matter is currently pending.

The Drugs Inspector, Chennai filed a complaint against Optival, the directors of Optival, Manager — Operations and
the person in-charge of the Kolathur branch, Chennai before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate-X, Egmore, Chennai
(“Metropolitan Magistrate”), wherein the Drugs Inspector alleged, among others, that (i) Kolathur branch had made
sales in respect of certain drugs without the presence of the registered pharmacist; (ii) that the said sales were made
without being properly recorded and signed by the registered pharmacist in the prescription register; (iii) that the said
sales were made without raising memo at the time of supply of a few drugs; (iv) that a few wholesale sales were made
without entering pertinent sale details, that all such actions are in contravention of Section 18 (c) of the DCA read with
the corresponding Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. Prior to filing of the Complaint, a show-cause notice was issued by the
Drugs Inspector on February 3, 2014 to Optival, the directors of Optival, Manager — Operations and the person in-
charge of the Kolathur branch, Chennai, against which they had submitted a response on May 2, 2014. The reply and
the statements were found unsatisfactory by the Drugs Inspector leading to initiation of the complaint process.
Aggrieved with the initiation of the said Complaint, Optival, the directors of Optival, Manager — Operations and the
person in-charge of the Kolathur branch, Chennai have filed a petition under section 482, Code of Criminal procedure,
1973 on November 24, 2017 before the High Court of Madras contending that the complaint proceeding is arbitrary
and the Drug Inspector failed to take into account the reply provided to the Drugs Inspector and among others, praying
to quash the aforesaid complaint. Simultaneous miscellaneous applications for staying the complaint proceedings and
dispensing with the mandatory personal attendance of the representative and director of Optival and the manager-
operation and person in charge of the Kolathur branch, under section 205, Code of Criminal procedure, 1973
respectively were also moved by them. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras by way of an order dated January 24, 2018
was pleased to stay the complaint proceedings and by way of order dated November 28, 2017 to dispense with the
personal attendance of the mandatory personal attendance of the representative and director of Optival and the
manager-operation and person in charge of the Kolathur branch. The matter is currently pending.

The Drugs Inspector - 4, Bangalore filed a complaint against Optival, the directors of Optival, the deputy general
manager and sales supervisor of the Kengeri branch, Bangalore before the Special Court for Economic Offences,
Bangalore (“Special Court”) wherein the Drug Inspector alleged, among others, that (i) the Kengeri branch made few
sales without the presence of a registered pharmacist; (ii) that the said sales were also made without any prescriptions
from any registered medical practitioner; (iii) that these sales were made without mentioning all relevant details of the
supplier, (iv) that the branch also sold incorrect drugs; and that all such actions are in contravention of Section 18

306
