Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Kailash S/o Mannalal Jindal, was the original accused No. 1 in Criminal Case No. 57/1994 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara. The case arose from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector alleging offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16(a) and punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint involved nine accused, including the applicant as a director of M/s Dujohn Laboratories Ltd. The allegation was that a sample of Duneuron Injection manufactured by the company was found to be of substandard quality, containing only 41.7% of the labelled amount of Pyridoxine hydrochloride. The sample was drawn on 17.05.1993 from M/s Shri Gurudeo Medical Stores, Bhandara. After analysis and inquiry, the complaint was filed in 1994. The applicant filed this application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal case and the order dated 26.04.2010 granting permission to the complainant to lead secondary evidence. The main legal issues were whether the inordinate delay of over 22 years in trial, the lack of valid sanction under Section 20 of the Act, and the improper order for secondary evidence warranted quashing. The court considered the submissions of both parties and held that the delay was grossly inordinate and violated the applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the prosecution was launched without valid sanction from the competent authority. Consequently, the court quashed the criminal case and set aside the order for secondary evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Inordinate Delay - The court considered whether criminal proceedings pending for over 22 years without commencement of trial should be quashed - Held that such delay violates Article 21 of the Constitution and proceedings are liable to be quashed (Paras 10-12). B) Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 20 - The court examined whether the prosecution was launched without valid sanction from the competent authority - Held that absence of valid sanction renders the prosecution invalid (Para 13). C) Evidence Act - Secondary Evidence - Section 65 - The court reviewed the order granting permission to lead secondary evidence of documents - Held that the order was passed without proper application of mind and is set aside (Para 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal case and the order granting permission to lead secondary evidence should be quashed due to inordinate delay and lack of valid sanction?
Final Decision
The court allowed the application, quashed Criminal Case No. 57/1994 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, and set aside the order dated 26.04.2010 granting permission to lead secondary evidence.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
- Inordinate delay in trial
- Lack of valid sanction under Section 20 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act
- 1940
- Secondary evidence under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
