IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) For quashing of a criminal complaint, Court, when it exercises its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not allegations in complaint disclose commission of a cognizable offence.
(2) Law is a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve ends of justice and courts, as protectors of law and servants of law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert sacrosanct nature of law.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the final order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the High Court of Madras (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) in Criminal O.P. No. 6445 of 2018, where the Appellants' plea under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal complaint against them was dismissed.

3. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of this Appeal are as follows:

(I) Appellant No. 1 is the proprietor of an established company under the name of M/s. Chem Pharm, a trader of raw material chemicals used in food, food supplements, medicinal preparations etc. Appellant No. 2 is the son and employee of Appellant No. 1.

(II) During the course of their business, the Appellants purchased 75 Kg of pyridoxal-5-phosphate (as 3 x 25 Kg packs) from one M/s Antoine and Becouerel Organic Chemical Co. vide invoice dated 19.03.2013.

(III) On 19.11.2013, the then Drug Inspector, Kodambakkam Range, inspected the Appellants’ premises and alleged contravention of S.18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945. It was claimed that the Appellants broke up the bulk quantity of pyridoxal-5-phosphate and sold it to different distributors.

(IV) It is alleged that the Appellant had broken up the bulk quantity of raw materials into various pack sizes containing quantities 0.5 kg, 1 kg, 10 kg and 15 kg and had sold the same to various drug manufacturers.

(V) On 30.03.2016, the Drug Inspector issued a show cause memo to the Appellants after nearly three years. The Appellants, after the show cause memo on 02.04.2016, submitted their reply to the same.

(VI) On 11.08.2017, after a further lapse of one year and four months, the Respondent, filed a complaint against the Appellants.

4. The Appellants, in the High Court of Madras, sought for quashing of the above-mentioned complaint, and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.08.2021 on the grounds that a trial was necessary to ascertain the facts of the case, and an order was passed to expedite the trial. The relevant part of the order is extracted below:

“Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the Appellants, however, this Court is of the opinion the issue is a triable issue and the grounds raised by the counsel for the Appellants are all factual in nature, and it requires an appreciation of evidence, and this Court cannot decide the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is left open to the Appellants to raise all the grounds before the Court, and the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the law. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below.”

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellants filed the present Appeal, seeking to quash the criminal complaint against them.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

6. The Ld. Counsel Appearing on behalf of the Appellants contended that:

(a) The Respondent/ Drugs Inspector has prima facie failed to give any evidence indicating that the substance “Pyridoxal 5 Phosphate” (Hereinafter referred to as Impugned Substance) is a drug only falling under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(b) The impugned substance is a bulk food substance falling under the definition of “food” as per Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Rules and Regulations thereunder, and not a drug under Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(c) The Respondent/Drugs Inspector cannot exercise powers under Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as it is subject to Section 23 of the same Act.

(d) Schedule K and Rule 123 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 exempt all substances that are capable of being used both in food manufacture and drug manufacture from all the requirements of Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(e) Even if the impugned substance is assumed to be a drug, the Appel