Back
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, S. V. N. BHATTI
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Panacea Biotec Ltd. – Respondent
The Supreme Court of India, in three consolidated criminal appeals (Nos. 1155, 1156, and 1157 of 2026), addressed challenges to proceedings under Sections 17(b), 17(c), 18(a)(i), and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, read with Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, concerning alleged misbranding of drugs. (!) (!) (!) (!)
In the lead matter (Appeal No. 1155), a private complaint on 05.01.2006 alerted authorities to labeling discrepancies on a pentavalent vaccine's carton (claiming "Easy Five") versus its vial (labeled "Easy Four," lacking Hepatitis B component), manufactured by respondent Panacea Biotec Ltd. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) The Drugs Inspector (a public servant authorized under Section 32 of the Act) investigated from 16.01.2006, seizing documents and tracing the supply chain, with accused identities confirmed by 18.04.2006. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) A formal complaint was filed on 20.01.2009 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, who took cognizance and issued summons after condoning delay under Section 473 CrPC. (!) (!) (!) The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against non-local respondents for the Magistrate's failure to conduct a Section 202 CrPC inquiry. (!)
The Court held that, under Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, the three-year limitation period (per Section 468(2)(c) CrPC for offences punishable up to three years' imprisonment) commences from the date the competent authority first knows the accused's identity during investigation, not the initial complaint or offence date—here, expiring on 17.04.2009, rendering the 20.01.2009 complaint timely. (!) (!) (!) (!) Cognizance on 29.01.2009 and summons post-condonation were valid. (!) (!)
On territorial jurisdiction, Section 202 CrPC (requiring inquiry if accused reside outside the Magistrate's area) must be harmoniously construed with the proviso to Section 200 CrPC, exempting examination of public servant complainants acting in official duty; thus, no mandatory postponement or inquiry was required, placing public servant complaints on a distinct pedestal to prevent undue harassment while ensuring sufficiency of grounds. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
In Appeal No. 1156 (by respondents), the limitation challenge failed for the same reasons. (!) (!) In Appeal No. 1157 (by Drugs Inspector re substandard syringes), the High Court quashed for Section 202 non-compliance and insufficient Section 34 Act averments against directors; the Court reversed, holding Section 202 inapplicable as above and Section 34 culpability (in-charge/responsible persons) a trial-stage factual issue. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Impugned High Court orders were set aside; cognizance/summons orders upheld; fresh summons directed; proceedings to continue per law, without prejudice to trial merits. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
The matters are dealt with as follows:
Criminal Appeal No. 1155 of 2026 of 2026 [@ SLP (CRL.) No.4524/2023]
1.1 Leave granted.
2. The present appeal assails the Final Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2022 passed in Crl. M.C. No.2802 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’).
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. On 21.10.2005, one Mr. Joy Mandi was informed, about an alleged discrepancy in the labelling of the subject drug, alleged to be manufactured and sold by the Respondents, by the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Thrissur, Kerala.
4. On 05.01.2006, Mr. Joy Mandi filed a Complaint with Appellant No.2-Drug Inspector regarding the discrepancy in the labelling of the drug alleged to be manufactured and sold by the Respondents. Admittedly, no bill of purchase of the drug was placed on record in the Complaint Case.
5. On 16.01.2006, Appellant No.2 received the Complaint dated 05.01.2006 filed by Mr. Joy Mandi, whereafter Appellant No.2 commenced an enquiry into the subject-matter of the said Complaint.
6. On 20.01.2009, Appellant No.2 f
Seizure of misbranded drug – Limitation period would run out only on completion of three years from the date identity of accused became known to Competent Authority.
Point of law: Quash of Criminal proceedings –Rejected - Disputed question of facts to be raised before trial court -
The court established that the procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to Sessions Judges, affirming their authority to take cognizance of cases under....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent powers of the High Court should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and that the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence un....
Cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires adherence to procedural mandates, especially under Section 202 of Cr. P. C when the accused is beyond jurisdiction.
A Magistrate must conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr. P.C before issuing process against an accused residing outside jurisdiction, even if cognizance can be taken for offences t....
Public servants filing complaints in their official capacity are entitled to appeal against acquittals under Section 417(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, ensuring their role as complainants is reco....
Unauthorised sale of drugs and violation of license conditions – Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable.
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
