Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Hasmukhlal D. Vora and another against the State of Tamil Nadu, quashing the criminal complaint against them under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The appellants were traders of raw material chemicals, including pyridoxal-5-phosphate, which they purchased in bulk and sold to various drug manufacturers. The Drug Inspector alleged that the appellants contravened Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) by breaking bulk quantities and repackaging without a manufacturing license. The High Court dismissed the appellants' quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, holding that the issues were triable. The Supreme Court, however, found that the complaint did not prima facie disclose any offence. The court noted that the impugned substance is a food supplement and not exclusively a drug, and that the appellants held a valid wholesale drug license. The court also observed that there was no evidence that the appellants broke open and repackaged the items. Applying the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court held that the allegations were insufficient to constitute an offence and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process. The court quashed the complaint and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 CrPC - Guidelines for Quashing - The court reiterated the categories of cases where inherent power can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings, including where allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or are absurd/inherently improbable, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. (Paras 8-11) B) Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Definition of Drug - Section 3(b) - Distinction from Food - The court examined whether pyridoxal-5-phosphate is a 'drug' under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 or a 'food' under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, noting that the substance is a bulk food supplement and not exclusively a drug. (Paras 6, 13-14) C) Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Exemption - Schedule K and Rule 123 - Substances capable of use both as food and drug are exempt from Chapter IV requirements. The court considered the argument that the impugned substance falls under such exemption. (Para 6d) D) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Lack of Prima Facie Evidence - The court found that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie evidence that the appellants broke bulk quantities or that the substance was a drug, and therefore quashed the proceedings to prevent abuse of process. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal complaint against the appellants under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 should be quashed for lack of prima facie evidence that the impugned substance is a drug and that the appellants committed any offence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed the criminal complaint and all proceedings arising therefrom.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal complaint under Section 482 CrPC
- Guidelines for quashing FIR/complaint
- Distinction between 'drug' and 'food' under Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Food Safety and Standards Act
- Scope of inherent powers of High Court
- Prima facie case requirement
