Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two criminal original petitions filed by M/s. Dharma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, V. Dharmalingam and Mageswari Dharmalingam, seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioners were accused of selling misbranded drugs, specifically 'Dermaone' and 'Dermaone Plus' ointments, which were allegedly not of standard quality. The Drugs Inspector filed complaints before the Judicial Magistrate, leading to the issuance of summons. The petitioners challenged the proceedings primarily on the ground that the prosecution lacked the mandatory sanction under Section 32A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which requires prior approval of the Central Government or the Drugs Controller General of India before taking cognizance of offences under the Act. The court examined the language of Section 32A and noted that it uses the word 'shall', indicating a mandatory requirement. The court observed that the sanction is a condition precedent for prosecution and its absence renders the cognizance invalid. The court also noted that the respondents did not produce any evidence of such sanction having been obtained. Consequently, the court held that the proceedings were void ab initio and quashed the complaints. The court further directed that the petitioners are entitled to refund of any fine or penalty paid, if any. The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards in drug-related prosecutions and the necessity of strict compliance with statutory requirements.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 32A - Sanction for Prosecution - The petitioners sought quashing of criminal complaints alleging sale of misbranded drugs - The court held that Section 32A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 mandates prior sanction of the Central Government or the Drugs Controller General of India for prosecution of offences under the Act - Since no such sanction was obtained, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was invalid and the proceedings were liable to be quashed - Held that the requirement of sanction is a condition precedent and its absence renders the prosecution void ab initio (Paras 1-19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for alleged offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be sustained in the absence of a valid sanction under Section 32A of the Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and quashed the criminal proceedings in both CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017. The court held that the absence of sanction under Section 32A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 renders the cognizance invalid and the proceedings void ab initio. The petitioners are entitled to refund of any fine or penalty paid, if any.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 32A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act
- 1940 is mandatory for prosecution of offences under the Act
- Cognizance without valid sanction is void ab initio
- Proceedings cannot be continued if sanction is not obtained
- The requirement of sanction applies to all offences under the Act
- The court can quash proceedings at any stage if lack of sanction is established
