Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M/s SBS BIOTECH & OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent
Key Points: - The complaint alleges offences under Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74, 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28-A; cognizance cited Section 27(d)/28-A (!) - High Court held that offences under Chapter IV are to be tried by proper courts, with Section 32(2) guiding that no court inferior to a Court of Sessions shall try these offences; Section 36-A excludes certain offences from summary trial; Section 36-AB designates Special Courts for adulterated/spurious drug offences (!) (!) (!) - The JMFC cognizance and committal orders are examined for proper applicability of Sections 27(d) and 28-A and the saving clause under Sections 32(2) and 36-A; the appeal disputes clerical omission of Section 27(d) in orders (!) (!) - The Court concluded that Section 32(2) requires trial by the Court of Sessions (not inferior) and thus the case was rightly committed to a Special Judge (I) under Section 36-AB for certain offences; Section 36-A preserves summary trial for offences with imprisonment up to 3 years unless designated otherwise (!) (!) - Limitation issue: The Court held that complaint was within 3-year period from 22.02.2017 despite 22.07.2014 inspection; Section 27(d) provides 1-2 year imprisonment hence within 3 years; reliance on Miteshbhai J. Patel is distinguished; Cheminova cited but not applicable here (!) (!) (!) - The High Court’s dismissal of the quashing petition was upheld; the appeal was dismissed. (!) (!) - The record-keeping violations under Schedule M/U and Rule 74 are central to the charges under Section 18(a)(vi) and 18-B (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 in Cr. MMO No. 167 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The Appellants sought the quashing of Complaint No. 36/3 of 2017 (subsequently renumbered as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017). The Appellants are being prosecuted for contravening Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74 and 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable under Section 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. Factual Matrix:
(i) The Appellant No. 1, M/s SBS Biotech, is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical preparations at Mauza Rampur Jattan, Nahan Road, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P.. The firm operates under valid drug licenses issued in Form-25 and Form-28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ('the Rules'), and is mandated to adhere to Schedule-M of the Rules. Appellant No. 2, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Santoshi, is the Production Head, and Appellant No. 3, Mr. Avinash Banga, was arrayed as the alleged managing partner at the relevant time.
(ii) The chronology of events commenced with an i
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
