Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39799

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
SRI. ABHAY KANWAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CRL.P 13151/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hashmath Pasha, Kariyappa.N.A
For the Respondents: Aravind Kamath, S. Rajashekar

A criminal prosecution under the Act cannot be sustained based on a qualitative forensic report that fails to specify the percentage of psychoactive substances, and vicarious liability of a company's director cannot be established in the absence of the company being impleaded as an accused.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 2(iii), 8(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27-A, 28, 29, 38, 52-A - Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 - Regulation 2.16 - Criminal Proceedings - Quashing - Essentiality of quantitative analysis - In the absence of a quantitative analysis to determine the percentage of specific psychoactive components, a laboratory report merely confirming the presence of these components is inconclusive and indeterminate for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings under the Act. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 15)

(B) Vicarious Liability - Offenses by companies - Prosecution of directors - A company is an essential and independent legal entity that must be arrayed as an accused before the directors can be held vicariously liable for the acts of the company, unless specific statutory provisions provide otherwise. (Paras 11, 12, 13)

(C) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course - Summoning an accused is a serious matter requiring the application of judicial mind to the adequacy of evidence, not merely a formal act. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a director of a business entity involved in importing food supplements, was charged with offenses under the Act following the seizure of imported food items. The investigating agency submitted a laboratory report confirming certain ingredients but failed to specify the quantitative percentage of these substances. The business entity was not initially arrayed as an accused in the complaint, and the petitioner contested the proceedings on grounds of an inconclusive forensic report and failure to implead the corporate entity.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that in cases involving substances permitted in specific thresholds for food use, a mere qualitative test is insufficient to establish guilt under the Act. Furthermore, the failure to array the corporate entity as an accused renders the proceedings against its directors legally untenable under the principle of vicarious liability.

Issues: The main issues were whether a charge sheet can be sustained based on an inconclusive qualitative laboratory report lacking quantitative percentage data, and whether criminal proceedings against a director are maintainable without the company being arraigned as an accused.

Ratio Decidendi: An inconclusive forensic report that fails to establish the concentration of contraband does not constitute sufficient material to launch a prosecution. Additionally, corporate criminal liability requires the company to be a party to the proceedings to impute liability onto its officers. Result : Petition allowed; impugned criminal proceedings quashed.

CAV ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“ (1) To quash the complaint filed in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 which is pending on the file of the Hon’ble XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act which is arising out of NCB File No.48/1/13/2024 BZU on the file of the respondent as per Annexure-‘C’, as an abuse of process of law.

(2) To set aside the order of cognizance and issue of summons dated: 30.11.2024 passed in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 on the file of Hon’ble XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore for Offences U/s 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act as per Annexure-‘B’ as illegal and abuse of process of law.

(3) To quash the entire proceedings pending in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 on the file of Hon’ble XXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bangalore city for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27-A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which is arising out of NCB File No.48/1/13/2024/BZU on the file of respondent as an abuse of process of law.

(4) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice.”

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 27.05.2024 at about 4 p.m., the respondent received information that parcels lying at Fedex Express Cargo Terminal, KIAL road, Devanahalli, Bangalore, imported from USA contained Narcotic Drugs and in pursuance of the same, the respondent collected the 3 parcels on 28.05.2024 and issued summons to the petitioner – accused No.1 and one Sri.Sunny Suresh Nair – accused No.2 and thereafter, arrested the petitioner and sent samples to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, on 01.07.2024 for testing the said goods which were chocolates in the form of gummies. After obtaining the test report dated 31.07.2024, the respondent filed a complaint before the Sessions Court, Bangalore, which took cognizance against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Sections 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act by arraigning the petitioner as accused No.1 along with other accused persons. Aggrieved by the impugned compliant, order and proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.2251/2024 pending before the Special Court, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. It is a matter of record that though the bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court, this Court in Crl.P.No.1429/2025, allowed the said petition vide final order dated 21.03.2025, thereby enlarging the petitioner – accused No.1 on bail.

4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned ASG for the respondent and perused the material on record.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the submits that the impugned proceedings are illegal and contrary to law and facts and the same deserve to be quashed. Learned Senior counsel would elaborate his submissions as hereunder:-

(i) The seized substances are gummies / food supplements and not Ganja as defined under Section 2(ii) (b) of the NDPS Act and as such, the seized substances do not come under the purview of the NDPS Act.

(ii) The seized substance are in the form of gummies like chocolates etc., which are good supplements and the allegation that it contains ingredients cannabis is false.

(iii) In order to ascertain whether the seized substance contains Ganja or not, in addition to the quantative test, it is necessary / essential to conduct a quantitative analysis test to determine the quantity of cannabis / hemp plant to find out the percentage of THC (Tetra Hydro Cannabinol) contained in the samples and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39799

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.R.KRISHNA KUMARSRI. ABHAY KANWAR – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA – RespondentCRL.P 13151/2024

A criminal prosecution under the Act cannot be sustained based on a qualitative forensic report that fails to specify the percentage of psychoactive substances, and vicarious liability of a company's director cannot be established in the absence of the company being impleaded as an accused.

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
SRI. ABHAY KANWAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
CRL.P 13151/2024