Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Innova Captab - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-42333 of 2017(O&M)
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Drugs Act - Quashing of Criminal Complaint - Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Drugs Act, Section 28; Cr.P.C., Sections 468, 469 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 28 of the Drugs Act, as well as Sections 468 and 469 of the Cr.P.C. The court highlighted the limitation period for filing a complaint, the penalty for non-disclosure of the manufacturer's name, and the commencement of the period of limitation. The court's decision was influenced by the violation of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cheminova’s case and Sanjay Kumar’s case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a criminal complaint and all consequential proceedings arising from it, related to an offence under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. The complaint was filed after the report of the Government Analyst was received, and the court observed that it was beyond the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period and the summoning order was passed beyond jurisdiction. It also noted that the complaint only named the firm as the accused without impleading any authorized representative, rendering the criminal proceedings unsustainable.
Issues: The issues included the bar to taking cognizance after the expiry of the limitation period, the applicability of the law laid down in previous cases, and the maintainability of the complaint against the company without impleading its responsible persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the violation of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., the unsustainable nature of the criminal proceedings, and the lack of impleading the responsible persons of the firm in the complaint.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the criminal complaint and all consequential proceedings were quashed.
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No.2 of 08.06.2012 (Annexure P-5) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 08.06.2012, passed against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred as to as ‘Drugs Act’) as well as order dated 21.12.2016 whereby the complaint case has been sent to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa for trial.
2. Briefly stating, facts of the present case are that on 08.10.2008 the inspecting team visited a chemist shop under the name of M/s Behal Medical Agency, Land Market, Sirsa; inspected the premises and took various samples of allopathic drugs in Form-17 for the purposes of test and analysis. Pursuant to the seizure made by the respondent, the drugs were sent to the Government Analyst and vide report dated 26.02.2009 (received by the Drug Inspector on 05.03.2009) in Form-13 issued by the Government Analyst in terms of Section 25(1) of the Drugs Act and the same was declared to be not conforming to the standard quality on account of the assay/potency of ciprofloxacin being less than the IP limits. Consequently, original test report and the third sample portion was forwarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.05.2009 by the respondent. On 08.03.2010, the investigating team along with drug authorities visited the manufacturing unit of the petitioner firm and directed it to submit certain documents by virtue of the letter dated 08.03.2010. On receipt of the aforementioned letter, petitioner firm submitted the requisite information and documents as demanded by the respondent. After receipt of the reply from the petitioner, sanction to prosecute was moved by the respondent on 16.03.2011 and the same was accorded by the Controlling Authority vide letter dated 13.10.2011.
3. Resultantly, respondent filed Criminal Complaint dated 07.06.2012 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa and the same was registered vide Criminal Complaint Case No.2 of 08.06.2012 in terms of Section 32 of the Drugs Act for violation of Section 18(A)(1) thereof being punishable under Section 28. Pursuant to the filing of the complaint, the Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence by issuing summons to the petitioner vide order dated 08.06.2012. However, vide order dated 21.12.2016, it was observed by Ld. Sessions Judge that alleged offences took place in the year 2008 i.e. prior to the amendment in the Drugs Act, effective from 10.08.2009, as such the offences were triable by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, therefore, this case file was also sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa for disposal according to law. In pursuance to the order dated 21.12.2016, complaint case No.02 of 08.06.2012 was registered as Complaint Case No.154 of 21.12.2016 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and the same is now pending adjudication.
4. Relying upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of “Cheminova India Limited and another vs. State of Punjab and another”, (2021) 8 Supreme Court Cases 818 and “State of Rajasthan vs. Sanjay Kumar, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 846, besides, Section 468 Cr.P.C. as well as Section 27(d) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the report of Government Analyst was received by the respondent on 05.03.2009, the complaint filed at their instance on 07.06.2012 was clearly barred by limitation and could not have been entertained at all by the learned Additional Session Judge. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph 13 of Cheminova's case (supra) as well as paragraph 13 of Sanjay Kumar's case (supra), which are reproduced hereunder for reference:-
“When it is clear from the language of Section 469, Cr.PC that the
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the limitation period for filing complaints under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and the influence of precedent set by ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period for filing a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the consequen....
Court is of the view that after taking into account the law of limitation, the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of detection of offence.
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.
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
