Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed criminal appeals arising from a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging misbranding of a vaccine by the Respondents -- The complaint was filed in 2009 after a delay, which was condoned by the Magistrate -- The High Court quashed the complaint in 2022 because the Magistrate did not conduct the mandatory enquiry under Section 202 CrPC, as the accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction -- The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that Section 202 CrPC requires such an enquiry to ensure sufficient grounds for proceeding, and this requirement applies even when the complaint is filed by a public servant -- The Court dismissed the Appellants' arguments based on the gravity of the offence, focusing on procedural compliance -- The proceedings were quashed, but the condonation of delay under Section 473 CrPC was not interfered with
Headnote
The Supreme Court dealt with appeals challenging the High Court's order quashing a complaint case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 -- The High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate failed to conduct the mandatory enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) as the accused resided outside territorial jurisdiction -- The Appellants argued that Section 202 CrPC is not mandatory for complaints by public servants and emphasized the gravity of the offences -- The Court held that the enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is mandatory when the accused is beyond territorial jurisdiction, regardless of the complainant being a public servant -- The delay in filing the complaint was condoned under Section 473 CrPC, but the proceedings were quashed due to jurisdictional non-compliance -- The decision relied on the interpretation of procedural safeguards under CrPC to prevent harassment of accused
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of whether the mandatory statutory enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was required when the accused resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and whether the complaint by a public servant exempts this requirement
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order quashing the complaint case, holding that the enquiry under Section 202 CrPC was mandatory as the accused resided outside territorial jurisdiction, and this requirement applies irrespective of the complainant being a public servant -- The delay condonation under Section 473 CrPC was not interfered with -- The appeals were dismissed
Law Points
- Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 mandates an enquiry when accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction
- Proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure places public servants on a different pedestal
- Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 deals with condonation of delay
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 provides inherent powers to quash proceedings
- Sections 18(a)(i)
- 17(b)
- 17(c)
- and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940 pertain to misbranding and labelling offences
- Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules
- 1945 specifies labelling requirements
