Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against Appellant and its officials for alleged violations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, related to record-keeping. The Appellants challenged the High Court's order dismissing their petition to quash the complaint. The prosecution sanction only cited record-keeping issues under Schedule-M and Schedule-U, without claims of drug quality violations. The court declined to quash the proceedings
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973- Sections 482 and 468 -- Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940-- Sections 27(d),18(a)(vi) and 28-A-- Rules- Rule 74, 22(1)(cca) and 18-B-- Inspection of firm of appellant-- Non maintenance of requisite record-- Inadeuate details regarding the entry of drug received-- Inspection report-- Tamper with record-- Contravention of section 18(a)(vi) and 18-B of Act-- Sanction for prosecution-- Criminal complaint-- Ld. Magistrate took cognizance-- Summons issued to appellant-- Contention raised to time bar cognizance taken, raised by appellant in view of provision of punishment-- Petition for quashing of proceedings filed before high court-- Dismissal of petition-- Aggrieved-- Challenged-- Contention of the appellant that the complaint filed after a period of two and a half years where as limitation is maximum period of one year as per section 468 of CRPC-- Provision of punishment of imprisonment for a term not less than one year but may extend to two years as per section 27(d) of Act, 1940-- As per Section 468 of CRPC complaint can be filed within a period of 3 years - Complaint in question filed within time limit-- Justification in dismissal of petition u/s 482 of CRPC by high court-- Appeal Dismissed
Para-- 27, 28, 33
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration was whether the criminal proceedings against the Appellants for alleged contraventions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, should be quashed due to procedural irregularities, lack of substantive offence, and violations of statutory provisions
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings against the Appellants, and set aside the High Court's order
Law Points
- Procedural compliance under Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under inherent powers
- Interpretation of Sections 18(a)(vi)
- 18-B
- 22(l)(cca)
- 27(d)
- 28-A
- Rule 74
- and Schedule-M and Schedule-U of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules
- 1945
- Violation of Section 23(6) regarding production of seized records
- Delay in prosecution and its impact
- Nature of offences under the Act
- Principles of fair trial and due process
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (02) 48
Criminal Appeal No. _____ of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9281 of 2025)
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA J. , VIPUL M. PANCHOLI J.
M/s SBS Biotech, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Santoshi, Mr. Avinash Banga
State of Himachal Pradesh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal challenging the High Court's order dismissing a petition to quash criminal proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Remedy Sought
The Appellants sought quashing of Complaint No. 36/3 of 2017 (renumbered as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017) and related proceedings
Filing Reason
Alleged contraventions of Sections 18(a)(vi), 18-B, and related provisions for record-keeping violations during drug manufacturing
Previous Decisions
High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the petition to quash the complaint via judgment dated 29.07.2024 in Cr. MMO No. 167 of 2018; Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, took cognizance and summoned Appellants on 06.04.2017
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed due to procedural irregularities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Whether the allegations constitute a substantive offence warranting prosecution under the Act
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued non-compliance with Section 23(6) regarding production of seized records, delay in prosecution, and lack of substantive offence allegations
Respondent asserted violations of record-keeping requirements under Schedule-M and Schedule-U, justifying prosecution
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that procedural irregularities, including violation of Section 23(6) and delay, coupled with the absence of allegations regarding drug quality (substandard, misbranded, etc.), rendered the prosecution an abuse of process. The offences pertained only to record-keeping, not substantive violations under the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellants sought the quashing of Complaint No. 36/3 of 2017
The prosecution sanction nowhere averred that the manufactured drugs were substandard, misbranded, adulterated, or spurious
The Appellants asserted that the seized records were never produced, constituting a blatant violation of Section 23(6) of the Act
Procedural History
Inspection on 22.07.2014 -- Spot Inspection Report and directions issued -- Re-inspection on 05.08.2014 with seizure of drug and documents -- Application for custody orders on 06.08.2014 -- Delay in informing State Drug Controller until 02.07.2015 -- Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2015 -- Reply submitted on 03.10.2015 -- Prosecution Sanction granted on 15.09.2016 -- Complaint filed on 27.02.2017 -- Cognizance taken and summons issued on 06.04.2017 -- High Court dismissed quashing petition on 29.07.2024 -- Supreme Court appeal filed
Acts & Sections
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Section 18(a)(vi), Section 18-B, Section 22(l)(cca), Section 22(d), Section 22(2-A), Section 22(3), Section 23(5)(b), Section 23(6), Section 27(d), Section 28-A
- Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945: Rule 74, Schedule-M, Schedule-U
