IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Keshav Kumar and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 16248 of 2023
Decided On : 07-02-2024
Forgery - Drugs and Cosmetics Act - 16, 17, 17A, 17B - The court discussed the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, specifically Sections 16, 17, 17A, and 17B, which deal with the definition of standard quality, misbranded, adulterated, and spurious drugs. The court highlighted the allegations of the creation of forged laboratory reports and emphasized that these allegations could only be investigated by the police under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and not under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court also noted that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR registered against them under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, alleging the creation of forged laboratory reports to justify the quality of drugs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made in the impugned FIR constituted a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and the investigation thereon. The court dismissed the petition as it did not find any merit in the plea to quash the FIR.
Issues: The interplay between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; whether an FIR can be registered under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; and whether the Drug Inspector has the power or authority to arrest a person in connection with an offence under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, do not have an overriding effect on any other law in force. It also highlighted that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. if the information discloses a cognizable offence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found that the allegations made in the impugned FIR constituted a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and the investigation thereon.
JUDGMENT :
Vinod Diwakar, J.
1. We have heard Shri Nitin Bhasin, holding the brief of Shri Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant, and Shri G.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State Respondents, and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 30.7.2023 as Case Crime No.419 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, registered at P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur, and for a direction to the respondent police not to arrest the petitioners till the pendency of the present petition. For clarity, the relevant portion of the prayer is underlined herein :
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of First Information Report dated 30.07.2023 registered as Case Crime No. 419 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 471, 504, 506 of IPC, P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur.”
3. The prosecution case is that the respondent no.4/complainant is in the health care business and had purchased 2000 injections from VADSP Pharmaceuticals, a third-party manufacturer company of the medicines. The said injections are used to develop antibiotics in children. After purchasing, the said injections were delivered for sale to Rastogi Hospital, Railway Road, Deoband, besides certain other medicines. After the use of the said injections, the doctor complained about the quality of the injections and stated that they are substandard and that if said injections are used, they could be injurious to the health of the children and pose a potential threat to their lives. The complainant immediately took back the entire stock from their distributors and hospitals and informed the accused-persons. The accused-persons/petitioners had clandestinely shown all parameters as correct in a certificate delivered along with the injections. The complainant also conducted a lab test from the Scientific Testing Lab, Roorki, Haridwar on 19.9.2022, which suggests the sample of the injections failed. The petitioners were again informed about the substandard quality of the injections through e-mail. The petitioners again sent a DN Laboratory Report dated 26.9.2022, showing the report as per standard. The test report of the complainant did not match the test report supplied by the petitioners to the complainant. The complainant has fraudulently prepared and managed a test report dated 26.9.2022 issued by DN Laboratory to justify the quality of the injections. The impugned FIR was registered against the petitioners on the preceding set of allegations.
4. Aggrieved by the registration of the impugned FIR bearing Case Crime No.19 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC at P.S. Deoband, District Saharanpur, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are partners in M/s Morgan Healthcare, situated at 1st Floor, Sam Building, Ratwara Sahib Gurudwara Road, Mullanpur, Kharar, Sas Nagar, who were granted license under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 by the State Drug Licensing Authority, Punjab, whereas the petitioner no.3 is a partner in M/s VADSP Pharmaceuticals, having its office at Plot No.124 EPIP, Phase-1, Jharmajri, Baddi, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, which has been granted a license to manufacture drugs under the provisions of the Act. The manufacturing company, i.e., petitioner no.3 was manufacturing the third-party drug “Meropenem Injection IP (Merofy-125 Injection)” from its unit. In the month of September, 2022, the respondent/complainant telephonically requested to take bac
State of Karnataka vs. and others
Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P.
Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma and other
State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal
Chimanlal Jagjivandas Sheth v. State of Maharashtra
Indian Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works, Hyderabad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on police powers to register an FIR for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as specified in Section 32 o....
The police lacked authority to investigate and seize under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, rendering the FIR invalid due to absence of essential elements of the alleged offences.
Police cannot prosecute for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; jurisdiction lies with designated authorities leading to invalid charges filed in sessions court.
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....
Non-compliance with inspection procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is not fatal for prosecution in cases involving allegations of spurious drugs.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of considering the actual quality of the product, the timing of the launch of prosecution, and the availability of administrative measures for minor def....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.