The court has the discretion to exclude certain periods from the computation of the period of limitation and to condone delay in the interest of justice under Section 473 of the Code.

ORDER :

Common questions are involved and therefore these revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

1. Crl.R.P 276 of 2018

The petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.2 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kozhikode. That case arose on a complaint filed by the st respondent-Health Inspector alleging commission of an offence punishable under Sections 27 (d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for the violations of the provisions of Section 18(a)(i). On receipt of summons, the petitioners entered appearance. The court below proceeded to record evidence under Section 244 of the Code and framed a charge. Thereafter the petitioners filed Crl. M.P No.3291 of 2017 seeking to drop all further proceedings in the case since the cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1.1. The petitioners contended that punishment prescribed for the offence being two years, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence is three years, and having the sample been taken on 29.01.2010 and a report of analysis obtained on 30.03.2010, the complaint filed only on 03.07.2013 was beyond period of limitation. Therefore the proceedings was sought to be dropped.

1.2. A written objection was filed by the Public Prosecutor. It was contended that the court had ample power to condone the delay under Section 473 of the Code. The further contention was that the 1st accused being a Company, its constitutional particulars were necessary to file complaint, which could be obtained only on 09.05.2013, and therefore there was no delay in filing the complaint.

2. Crl.R.P 282 of 2018: Accused No.4 and 5 in C.C.No.1 of 2014 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class– III, Kozhikode are the petitioners. On 29.01.2010, samples of medicines were drawn from City Medicals, Kozhikode. Report from the Drug Analyst was obtained on 09.04.2010. The medicines were not of prescribed standard. Hence, the complaint was filed on 24.06.2013. The offence alleged against the petitioners is punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, for which the maximum punishment prescribed is imprisonment for two years and also fine. Stating that the period of limitation for filing the complaint being three years as per Section 468(2)(c) of the Code, and the complaint was filed after that period, the petitioners sought to drop the proceedings against them.

2.1. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed a written objection. It was contended that the court had ample power to condone the delay in exercise of the powers under Section 473 of the Code. The further contention was that the 1st accused being a Company, its constitutional particulars were necessary to file the complaint and such particulars could be collected only on 09.05.2013. Accordingly, the respondent took the view that there was no delay in filing the complaint. Crl.R.P.Nos.276 and 282 of 2018:

3. The court below after considering the matter in detail took the view in both the cases that there was no delay in filing the complaints. It was held that on getting the report of examination from the Drug Analyst, details of the manufacturer/supplier were to be collected and therefore the complainant issued notice under Section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The details were furnished by the City Medicals. As contemplated in Section 25(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a copy of Form -13 report along with a sample was sent to the 1st accused-company. In terms of Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a period of 28 days ought to be given to the 1st accused for it to avail the opportunity of getting the sample examined in the Central Drug Laboratory. It was further noticed by the court below that details of the constitutional particulars of the 1st accused-Company were necessary since the persons responsible for the affairs of the company are also l