Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, AFD Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Angle French Drugs & Industries Ltd., and their directors, filed two criminal writ petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 21 July 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Vasco, Goa. The JMFC had ordered issuance of process against the petitioners on a complaint lodged by the Drugs Inspector (respondent) under Section 18(i)(a) read with Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint alleged that the petitioners had manufactured and exported drugs that were not of standard quality. The petitioners contended that the complaint was filed without obtaining prior sanction from the Drug Controller as required under Section 32 of the Act, and therefore the complaint and the subsequent process were invalid. The respondent argued that the Drugs Inspector was authorized to file the complaint and that sanction was not a prerequisite. The court examined the provisions of Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which mandates that no prosecution under the Act shall be instituted except by or with the written consent of the Drug Controller or any other officer authorized in this behalf. The court found that the complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector without any such sanction or authorization. The court held that the absence of prior sanction renders the complaint invalid and the issuance of process based on such complaint is liable to be quashed. The court further held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the court allowed the petitions, quashed the order dated 21 July 2017, and set aside the process issued against the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Process - Section 482 CrPC - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sanction - The petitioners challenged the order of JMFC issuing process against them under Section 18(i)(a) read with Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, on the ground that the complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector without prior sanction of the Drug Controller. The court held that the complaint was invalid for want of sanction and quashed the process. (Paras 1-10) B) Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Complaint - Sanction - Section 32 - The court examined the requirement of sanction under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and found that the Drugs Inspector had not obtained prior sanction from the Drug Controller before filing the complaint. The court held that such sanction is mandatory and its absence renders the complaint invalid. (Paras 5-8) C) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Complaint - The court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash proceedings where the complaint is invalid for want of sanction, as continuing such proceedings would be an abuse of process of court. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector under Section 18(i)(a) read with Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, without prior sanction of the Drug Controller, is maintainable and whether the issuance of process based on such complaint is liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the criminal writ petitions, quashed the order dated 21.07.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Vasco, and set aside the process issued against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 32 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act is mandatory before filing complaint
- Complaint by Drugs Inspector without sanction is invalid
- Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash process in such cases
