Criminal proceedings against an individual for alleged corporate offences committed after their retirement, and where evidence establishes no role in the relevant activities, constitute an abuse of process warranting quashing under inherent powers via Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

<GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1. (1999) 5 SCC 209

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed with the following prayer:

“…Pleased to quash the Spl SC No.03 of 2019 on the file of the Ld.1st Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally against the petitioner/Accused No.1 and pass such orders…”

2. Heard Mr.V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent.

3. Complaint came to be filed in the month of March, 2012 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., read with Section 32(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for an offence under Section 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (for short ‘Act, 1940’) in the Court of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Secunderabad.

4. In the complaint (annexed at Page No.5) place of offence is shown as Central Hospital, South Central Railway, Lalaguda, Secunderabad (referred to as ‘Hospital’). The complainant–respondent drew sample along with CBI officials on 14.05.2010 from the premises of hospital, as per the Act and Rules, in Form 17A with Sample No. PBN/AP-SZ/36-10.

5. Samples were forwarded to Government Analyst to Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, in Form 18 vide memorandum No.6-2(1)/Sub Zone/2010/733, dated 21.05.2010 for test analysis. Test report was received in Form 13 from Government Analyst on 16.08.2010 for the sample of Roxythromycin Tablets I.P. (Indian Pharma Copoeia) 150 mg bearing Batch No. H-8462T, declared as ‘Not of standard quality’, as sample did not confirm to I.P. with respect to dissolution.

6. A show cause notice dated 30.08.2010 was issued to hospital for disclosing the sale particulars of drug, and further a direction was issued not to use the subject batch of drug, a copy of the original test report was given to the hospital.

7. On the basis of the complaint received, the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, committed the case to concerned Court, i.e., I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally Courts. On the basis of contents of complaint and the material, case was numbered as Special S.C. No.03 of 2019 (on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad at Nampally).

8. Petitioner/accused No.1 herein filed this petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS, 2023’). Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that sample of drug, Roxythromycin 150 mg bearing Batch No.H-8462T, was drawn from the hospital on 14.05.2010, that the drug was manufactured in March, 2009 and petitioner retired on 31.01.2009.

9. It is submitted that the petitioner was a Zonal Manager in Hindustan Antibiotics Limited at the particular point of time. It is the specific case of petitioner that petitioner/accused No.1 was not in charge of day-to-day affairs of company at the time of manufacture of drug, and that one Preeth International Private Limited was drug manufacturer who supplied the drug.

10. It is not in dispute that petitioner retired from company on 31.01.2009, that the drug was manufactured in the month of March, 2009, after retirement of petitioner/accused No.1 by Preeth International Private Limited, which is arrayed as an accused in SPL S.C. No.03 of 2019.

11. It is the case of complainant-respondent that all