Back
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
SBS Biotech – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
Court's Key Observations:
The complaint alleges contravention of Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74, Section 22(1)(cca), and Section 18-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28-A. (!) (!)
Appellants failed to maintain requisite records as per Schedules M and U of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, including production, consumption, purchase, and sale records for Pseudoephedrine, with discrepancies, tampering, and non-production despite notices. (!) (!) (!)
Non-maintenance and non-furnishing of records constitutes manufacture, stocking, or distribution of drugs in contravention of Chapter IV provisions and rules, falling under Section 18(a)(vi), punishable under Section 27(d) (imprisonment not less than 1 year, up to 2 years). (!) (!)
Complaint filed on 27.02.2017 (or 22.02.2017), within 2 years and 6 months from inspection on 22.07.2014, is not barred by 3-year limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable up to 2 years. Omission of Section 27(d) in cognizance order was a clerical error, as referenced elsewhere. (!) (!) (!)
Section 32(2) mandates offences under Chapter IV be tried by no court inferior to Court of Session; Section 36-A's summary trial provision excludes such offences and those triable by Special Court under Section 36-AB. Committal to Special Judge-I was correct. (!) (!) (!) (!)
High Court committed no error in dismissing Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition; proceedings disclose triable offences requiring trial, not quashing at threshold. (!)
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 in Cr. MMO No. 167 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The Appellants sought the quashing of Complaint No. 36/3 of 2017 (subsequently renumbered as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017). The Appellants are being prosecuted for contravening Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74 and 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable under Section 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. Factual Matrix:
(ii) The chronology of events commenced with a
UNION OF INDIA VS ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA - 2020 6 Supreme 1: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, abrogated) are present. The description consists solely of substantive holdings related to arrest powers under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Cr.P.C., with no reference to how this case has been treated in subsequent decisions.
Miteshbhai J. Patel VS Drug Inspector - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1232: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The description outlines a holding on quashing complaints due to limitation periods under CrPC, but provides no information on subsequent treatment.
CHEMINOVA INDIA LTD. VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2021 5 Supreme 385: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The description states a holding on the commencement of limitation periods and abuse of process, but lacks any indicators of how the case has been treated by later courts.
Seizure of drugs for violation of legal provisions – A genuine complaint cannot be quashed without trial.
Directors are liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the conduct of the company's business, and summoning orders require only a prima facie case without extensive procedural scrutiny.
Non-compliance with statutory provisions and resignation of the accused from the company absolved him of liability, leading to the quashing of the proceedings.
Conviction under drug regulation provisions requires proving non-compliance, highlighting the importance of disclosing the manufacturer's details for legal protection.
A stockist cannot be held liable for drug quality violations if not impleaded in the prosecution, highlighting the necessity of prosecuting the manufacturer under the relevant legal framework.
Prosecution quashed for delay in sample testing beyond 60 days without extension under Rule 45 and failure to send sample to manufacturer under Section 23(4)(iii), depriving re-analysis right post sh....
Sildenafil Citrate is an allopathic drug and it cannot be used by anybody else unless a person who holds licence for it.
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
