Back
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Miteshbhai J. Patel – Appellant
Versus
Drug Inspector – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 3) |
| 2. court's observations on delays and compliance. (Para 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. determination of limitation period. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. understanding statutory limitation provisions. (Para 7) |
| 5. final ruling on the appeal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
2. The present appeals arise from the common judgment and final order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Cr. Rev. Petition Nos. 276 and 278 of 2018 wherein the Court has affirmed the view of the Trial Court by which the complaints were said to be within the period of limitation.
3.1. The respondent Drug Inspector drew samples of two batches of a drug named Rabeprazole Tablets from a medical shop named City Medicals in Kozhikode, Kerala on 29.01.2010. The said drug is manufactured by the company named Indica Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. of which the appellants are the directors.
3.3. Thereafter, the respondent-Drug Inspector filed two complaints, bearing no. CC 1/2014 and CC 2/2024 under section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 [The 1940 Act] against the appellants, alleging, inter alia, commission of an offence for the violation of section 18(a)(i) of
Complaints filed after the limitation period under CrPC were quashed as the respondents failed to justify the delays in filing.
Conducting of an enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C is mandatory, when the accused is residing at a place beyond the area of jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the law and facts of the case before taking cognizance of an alleged offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Seizure of sub-standard anti-snake venom – Cognizance of offence – Period of limitation would commence from date of receipt of test/analysis report of seized drugs disclosing that seized drug was not....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the limitation period for filing a complaint and the necessity of impleading responsible persons in a complaint again....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that complaints filed under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must adhere to the time limitation prescribed under Section 468 C....
The complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was filed beyond the three-year limitation period, violating the petitioners' right to re-examine the drug, leading to quashing of the proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
