SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Yashpal Chail – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2025 [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4912 of 2023]
Decided On : 12-02-2025
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 18/27 – Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – Rule 71 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Seizure of adulterated and spurious drugs – Form 32 was filed by appellant herein before Registrar of Companies indicating clearly that owing to his resignation, he ceased to be associated with company with effect from 01.06.2009 – This clearly establishes fact that he was no longer a member of Board of Directors of Company – No contrary material has been produced by either complainant or respondent-State to contend that appellant continued his association with company – Allegations and offences alleged as against appellant under Section 18/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 were wholly illegal and contrary to established facts – Impugned order set aside and application filed by appellant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. allowed – Summoning order and proceedings in Special Case quashed as against appellant. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein has assailed order dated 02.09.2022 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Application U/S 482 No.970 of 2016. High Court by impugned order dated 02.09.2022 had dismissed said application filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and alternatively, reserved liberty to appellant herein to file an application seeking discharge if so advised.
Findings of Court:
Investigation has revealed that ultimately the incriminating drugs and medicines were sourced from Elmac. Be that as it may. Fact that appellant has ceased to have any association with Elmac has been established.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein has assailed the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Application U/S 482 No. 970 of 2016.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 15.06.2010, the Drugs Inspector, Gonda conducted a raid on M/s. Jai Medical Store situated in Dharampur Bhagwatiganj, Balrampur and collected a sample of ‘Fena’ tablets manufactured by M/s. Elmac Remedies Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Elmac”). Upon testing of the collected sample of drugs, a report dated 21.07.2011 was prepared, according to which the said drugs were found to be below the prescribed standard and falling within the category of ‘adulterated’ and ‘spurious’ drugs under Section 17 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [in short, “the Act”). The Drugs Inspector issued show-cause notices to the staff of Elmac and other companies involved in the sale of the seized drug and based upon the investigation, the Drugs Inspector filed Special Case No. 9 of 2013 under Section 32 of the Act before the Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Gonda.
The petitioner herein was the manufacturing chemist of Elmac from 01.07.2006, as per the statutory requirement under Rule 71 the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 [in short, “Rules”]. The license to manufacture was granted to the company on 22.07.2006. The petitioner was also one of the directors of Elmac. However, the petitioner resigned from the post of manufacturing chemist at Elmac by resignation letter dated 15.12.2008 and informed the Drug Controlling and Licensing Authority about the same by its letter dated 15.01.2009. The petitioner also resigned from the directorship of Elmac with effect from 01.06.2009 and requisite Form 32 was issued to that effect in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act. However, pursuant to the raid conducted on 15.06.2010 and as part of the proceedings in Special Case No. 9 of 2013 instituted by the Drugs Inspector, summons were issued against the petitioner as well vide order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the Application U/S 482 No. 970 of 2016 before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
4. By the said application before the High Court, the proceedings in Special Case No. 9 of 2013 (State vs. Satish Prakash Yadav and Others) pending in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gonda, under Section 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules as well as the summoning order dated 26.09.2013 as against the appellant herein, were assailed.
5. The High Court by the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 had dismissed the said application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) and alternatively, reserved liberty to the appellant herein to file an application seeking discharge if so advised. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, the appellant is before this Court.
6. We have heard Sri Shivam Batra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Namit Saxena, learned standing counsel for the first respondent-State at length. Second respondent is not present before this Court.
7. We have perused the material on record.
8. The documents appended to the appeal, the additional documents annexed along with the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent-State, and the additional documents filed on behalf of the appellant have been perused by us.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that voluminous documents were produced before the High Court to contend that as on the date of the raid, which was on 15.06.2010, the appellant herein was no longer a Director of Elmac. In that regard, our attention was drawn to Form 32, which had been filed by the appellant herein before the Registrar of Companies so as to corroborate the fact that the appellant was no longer associated with Elmac with effect from 01.06.2009
Seizure of adulterated and spurious drugs – Former Director of Company has no criminal liability.
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Directors of a company not involved in drug manufacturing cannot be held liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act absent specific evidence of their responsibility for the conduct of business.
At the stage of framing charges, the court should only consider the allegations made in the complaint and the supporting documents. The court should not delve into the evidence or conduct a mini-tria....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exemption of the drugs manufactured by the petitioner from the provisions of Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 under Schedule ....
Distributors of drugs are not liable for quality issues if they prove acquisition from a licensed manufacturer and proper storage, as per Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.