IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 8 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13802 of 2016

M/S SHEEL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES THR.

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Savita - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed

for quashing Criminal Case No. 3088 of 2015, pending before the CJM, District Morena, for offences under Sections 18(a) and 18(b) read with

Sections 27(d) and 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the Drug

Inspector, Morena (Respondent No. 2), alleging that he visited the petitioner’s company, situated at Ganesh Bag Colony, A.B. Road, on 01.07.2012. He was accompanied by the Storekeeper, Shri S.S. Dandotiya, and officials from the Office of the Deputy Director, Veterinary Hospital, District Morena. During the visit, the Drug Inspector collected a sample of the drug Albendazole Suspension from Batch No. AL-11-07, which bore a manufacturing date of 11/11 and an expiry date of 10/13. The sample was

collected under Form No. 17.

3. After the collection of the said sample, it was sent to the State Laboratory, Idgah Hills, Bhopal, via Form No. 18. Subsequently, as per Report No. 15 (dated 24.06.2013), the sample was found not to conform to the prescribed standards under Section 25(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, a copy of the Government Analyst’s report must be forwarded to the company. However, without following this procedure or providing a copy of the report to the petitioner, the Controller granted sanction to the Drug Inspector on 23.08.2014. By that date, the shelf-life of the drug had already expired. Due to the failure to serve the report in a timely manner, the petitioner company was deprived of its right to seek a re-test or analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(3) or (4) of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner’s valuable right to challenge the report during the drug's shelf-life has been violated.

4. Without adhering to the mandatory procedure or providing the sample report to the accused, cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court vide order dated 15.12.2015 for alleged violations of Sections 18(a)

and 18(b), punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28(A) of the Act.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the order dated

15.12.2015, the learned Trial Court failed to apply its judicial mind to whether a complaint could be entertained after the expiry of the drug's shelf- life. Furthermore, the Court failed to note that for the alleged breaches of Sections 18(a) and 18(b), the maximum punishment provided under Sections 27(d) and 28(A) is two years. Therefore, under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C, the period of limitation for taking cognizance is restricted. Neither could the Drug Inspector have filed the complaint, nor could the learned Trial Court have taken cognizance after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. As such, the entire prosecution is null and void, being vitiated by non- compliance with the mandatory procedures of the 1940 Act and being expressly barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.

6. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltd. & Anr Vs. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 13 of 2007, as well as judgment passed by Bombay High Court in the case of Jethmal Kimmatmal Jain and others Vs. State of Maharastra, passed in Criminal Application No. 1399 of 1980. In such circumstances, proceedings pending before JMFC, deserves to be quashed.

7. Shri Savita, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the very fact that the court took cognizance of the offence indicates that it has condoned the delay in the interest of justice; the only rem