Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J.
M/s.Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.1637 of 2014
Decided on : 09-06-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 21- Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 468 and 482 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Drug - Protection of Life and personal Liberty - Certified copy of purchase invoice - Allegations of complaint are that A-1 is company and A-2 to A-4 are Directors of A-1 company - Second respondent is Drug Inspector, who filed complaint against the petitioners - Drug Inspector visited M/s.Venkata Laxmi Medical and General Stores and has lifted of Peptilcer (Rx.Pantoprazole Tablet) B.No.BA3905 manufactured on , Expiry date in quantity 25x10 which is manufactured by M/s.Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (A-1) for purpose of analysis and towards the price of 25x10 tablets, he paid Rs.320/- and obtained cash memo and receipt - Second respondent divided sample of 25x10 tablets into four portions (one portion containing 10x10 and three portions containing 5x10 tablets - Whether present complaint would fall under category of Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C. and as a result, whether trial Court was barred from taking cognizance of same - Section 468 Cr.P.C. stipulates that after the lapse of period of limitation, a bar is instituted that prevents the Court from taking cognizance of an offence of the categories which are enumerated under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. (Para 15).
Finding of the Court :
Drug Inspector has not made any specific allegation against Directors as to how they are in-charge or responsible for affairs of company as contended by learned counsel for petitioners - In absence of any specific averments about role of Directors and how they are responsible in conduct of business, net result would be that complaint would not be entertainable - Complaint which has been filed on, therefore, clearly out of limitation period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C - Right which is accrued to the petitioners as a result of the expiry of limitation period is a valuable right that flows from petitioners right to a speedy and fair trial as conceptualized under Article 21 of Constitution of India - Therefore, continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.146 of 2013, on file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet against petitioners would be abuse of process of law and in ends of justice, same are liable to be quashed
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 in C.C.No.146 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.
2. The allegations of the complaint are that A-1 is the company and A-2 to A-4 are the Directors of A-1 company. The second respondent is the Drug Inspector, who filed complaint against the petitioners. On 26.04.2008 the Drug Inspector visited M/s.Venkata Laxmi Medical and General Stores at Suraypet and has lifted of Peptilcer (Rx.Pantoprazole Tablet) B.No.BA3905 manufactured on 08/2007, Expiry date 07/2009 in quantity 25x10 which is manufactured by M/s.Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Haridwar (A-1) for the purpose of analysis and towards the price of 25x10 tablets, he paid Rs.320/- and obtained cash memo and receipt. The second respondent divided sample of 25x10 tablets into four portions (one portion containing 10x10 and three portions containing 5x10 tablets. One portion of the sample (5x10) tablets was restored with M/s.Venkatalaxmi Medical and General Stores and another portion of the sample i.e. 10x10 of peptilcer was sent to the Government Analyst, the Drugs Control Laboratory, Hyderabad by writing details in Form-18 for the purpose of analysis on 28.04.2008.
3. The Government analyst vide report, dated 09.09.2008, opined that “sample was not of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and rules thereunder for the reason that sample does not meet the Disintegration test as per IP 96 specification for Enteric coated tablets”. On 19.09.2008 letter was served to M/s.Sri Venkata Laxmi Medical and General Stores, Suryapet requesting to disclose the particulars of person from whom drug was obtained and to furnish purchase invoice as well as particulars of sample drug. On the same day Sri Ch.Venkanna (LW.2) furnished certified copy of purchase invoice of M/s.Venkadara Associates Vijayawada(LW.3). The Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.3 and LW.3 confirmed the same by letter, dated 24.09.2008 and submitted a copy of purchase invoice from M/s.S.R.Enterprises, Vijayawada (LW.4). The Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.4 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug to LW.3 and furnish certified copies of purchase invoice and sales particulars. On 11.12.2008, LW.4 in their reply stated that they have purchased the subject drug from M/s.MKS Pharma Ltd., Faridabad (LW.5). On 18.12.2008, the Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.5 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug. On 07.01.2009 Lw.5 in their reply stated that they had purchased the subject drug from M/s.Biochem Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Mumbai (LW.6). On 24.01.2009 a letter was addressed to LW.6 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug. On 07.03.2009 LW.6 confirmed the sale of subject drug to LW.5. On 23.03.2009 again letter was addressed to LW.6 with request to furnish purchase invoice. On 01.04.2009 LW.6 furnished purchase invoice, dated 24.09.2007, of A-1 firm M/s.Akum Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Haridwar.
4. The Drug Inspector addressed a letter on 27.04.2009 to A-1 firm to furnish registers and records of the said drug enclosing Analytical report. On 25.06.2009 a reminder letter was also issued. On 18.07.2009 the Drug Inspector received a letter dated 06.07.2009 from A-1 with certified copies of documents and records of the subject drug and informed that they intend to adduce the evidence in contravention of the said report under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short “the Act”).
5. The Drug Inspector deposited the second sample of the subject drug under Section 23(4) of the Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet with a request to forward the said sample to Central Drug Laboratory, Calcutta for ‘Disintegration test for Enteric coated tablets.’
6. The Director, Central Drug Laboratory in his report, dated 03.08.2009, opined that the sample do
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.
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....
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 ....
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.
Quash of Criminal proceedings - once it is shown that the right of accused to adduce evidence in controversion of the Government Analyst’s report is defeated due to acts and omission of the Drugs Ins....
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
