When a criminal prosecution is fundamentally flawed due to non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards, the proceedings cannot be sustained against any co-accused persons involved in the same transaction, as continuation would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sonepur in 2(C) C.C. Case No.55 of 2012 taking cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the entire criminal proceeding emanating therefrom, insofar as the present Petitioners are concerned.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.08.2007, a statutory sample of the drug namely “Vigizyme Liquid”, Batch No. VVZ-01, manufactured by M/s. Three B Health Care Pvt. Ltd., was collected from the sales premises of Petitioner No.2-M/s. New Life Medical Store, Ulunda, for the purpose of test and analysis. One portion of the sample was forwarded to the Government Analyst, who declared the drug to be “Not of Standard Quality”. During inquiry, Petitioner No.2 disclosed its source of procurement as M/s. Archana Enterprises, Balangir, who in turn disclosed procurement from Petitioner No.1-M/s. Vision Meedilink, Ahmedabad. Petitioner No.1 thereafter disclosed that the drug had been procured from the manufacturer, namely M/s. Three B Health Care Pvt. Ltd. On the basis of such enquiry, the complaint came to be lodged alleging contravention of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 27(d) thereof, and [[IMG_1]] cognizance was taken by order dated 02.04.2012.

4. It is not in dispute that in respect of the selfsame complaint case, namely 2(C) C.C. Case No.55 of 2012, the co-accused persons, being the Board of Directors of the manufacturer company-M/s. Three B Health Care Pvt. Ltd., had approached this Court in CRLMC No.3280 of 2017, which was allowed by judgment dated 30.07.2025 and the criminal proceeding against them stood quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the present case stands squarely covered by the judgment dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court in CRLMC No.3280 of 2017 arising out of the very same complaint case, wherein the proceeding was quashed upon holding that the prosecution suffered from inherent infirmities and non-compliance with the mandatory safeguards engrafted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is contended that the present Petitioners were co-accused in the same prosecution and no independent or distinguishing allegation has been made against them so as to justify continuation of the proceeding. It is further submitted that once the very foundation of the prosecution has already been held to be legally unsustainable, the continuation of the same criminal case against the [[IMG_2]] present Petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of Court.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, relying upon the written instructions received from the Drugs Inspector, Subarnapur Range, submits that during investigation Petitioner No.2 disclosed procurement of the subject drug from M/s. Archana Enterprises, Balangir, and the said concern in turn disclosed procurement from Petitioner No.1-M/s. Vision Meedilink, Ahmedabad. In view of a report dated 14.04.2026 endorsed by the Drugs Inspector, Ms. Majhi, who also personally appeared pursuant to the direction issued by this Court; it is further submitted that Petitioner No.1 disclosed that the drug had been procured from the manufacturer, namely M/s. Three B Health Care Pvt. Ltd. According to the State, since the present Petitioners formed part of the supply chain of the drug which was declared “Not of Standard Quality”, the prosecution has rightly been instituted for the alleged contravention of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, punishable under Section 27(d) thereof.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present case no longer remains res i