Dismissed

Minopharm Laboratories v. the Drugs Inspector II

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026CRL.P/3040/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Manufacturer, its Managing Director and authorized signatory sought quashing of prosecution for drugs not of standard quality, alleging the Drugs Inspector failed to follow the four-portion sampling procedure. The High Court found prima facie compliance on record, held any defect was a matter for trial defence, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Minopharm Laboratories Vs the Drugs Inspector II — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3040 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MINOPHARM LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. OPP. IDA PERNAMITTA-523002 ONGOLE DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶10

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

MR. ANIL KUMAR KARUSALA S/O SRI. K. TATA RAO MANAGING DIRECTOR MINOPHARM LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. R/AT FLAT NO.303, A-BLOCK VISHNU SPELENDOR APARTMENTS YELLAREDDYGUDA NEAR H.P. GAS GODOWN SREENAGAR COLONY HYDERABAD - 500 073.

¶12

SRI. T. NARASIMHA S/O T. VENKATESH MAJOR C/O VEERAMANI 8-3-228/679/1 RAHAMATHNAGAR YUSUFGUDA HYDERABAD - 500 039.

¶13

&PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI: MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: A SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE DRUGS INSPECTOR II DAVANAGERE CIRCLE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER NO.376/2, 2^ND FLOOR, 8^TH CROSS 4^TH MAIN, P.J. EXTENSION DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶20

&RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SMT: SOWMYA R., HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN SPL.C.NO.2/2015 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 18(A)(I) AND PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 27(D) OF DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT, 1940.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner No.1 being the Company a manufacturer of drugs, petitioner No.2 being the Managing Director and petitioner No.3 being the authorized signatory have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.2 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, registered for the offences under Section 18(a)(i) and punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Heard Sri N K Mallikarjun, learned counsel for Sri A

¶30

Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt R Sowmya, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer, petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and petitioner No.3 is the authorized signatory. Respondent - Drugs Inspector has filed the private complaint before the Trial Court against these petitioners alleging commission of offences under Section 18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. The cognizance was taken and CC No.2 of 2015 came to be registered and the same is pending for trial before the Trial Court.

¶32

Learned counsel further contended that as per the report of analyst relied on by the respondent, the drugs that was manufactured by petitioner No.1 and seized by the respondent was not of standard quality and thereby they have committed the offences as stated above. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the very same drugs was sent for analysis through Drugs Testing Laboratory,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Government of Karnataka and the report obtained by the petitioners discloses that sample 'conformed to IP standard' with respect to the test that was done. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that there was no occasion for the respondent to make such allegations that the drugs that was manufactured by petitioner No.1 is not of standard quality.

¶37

The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per Sections 23(4) and 25 of the Act, respondent - Drugs Inspector is required to draw sample by dividing into 4 portions. One portion is required to be given to the retailer from whom the drugs was purchased; second portion is required to be sent to Government analyst; the third portion is to be given to the Court and the last one is to be given to the manufacturer whose name and particulars as disclosed under Section 18-A of the Act.

¶38

Learned counsel further contented that the above procedure as contemplated under the Act was never followed. The petitioners are said to have written letter dated 04.02.2015 to the respondent - Drugs Inspector asking him to send the sample to CDL for taking further steps. According to the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

learned counsel for the petitioners inspite of receipt of this letter, there was no response from the respondent and the 4^th sample was never supplied to petitioner No.1 - manufacturer.

¶43

Learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited Vs State of Tamil Nadu¹ . He also places reliance on the decision of this Court in M/s Vidhyasha Pharmaceuticals

¶44

and Others Vs State of Karnataka² . Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that when the respondent - Drugs Inspector has not followed the procedure as contemplated under the Act while drawing sample and preserving the same, the criminal case against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶45

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that the procedure as contemplated under the Act are complied in letter and spirit. Four portions of the samples were drawn by the Drug Inspector, one was given to the retailer, one portion is

¶46

1 (2018) 15 SCC 93

¶47

2 WP 3447/2023 DD 12.06.2023

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

produced before the Court, one is sent to FSL and the other portion was sent to the petitioners. The copy of letter addressed to the retailer/manufacturer is also forwarded to the petitioners directing the petitioners to approach the complainant within 28 days, if they are having any grievance. They never approached the complainant with any grievance. She contends that the petitioners have not raised any of these contentions even before the Trial Court. Even though there is no stay granted by this Court which is operating, the petitioners managed to stall the proceedings before the Trial Court without any reason. The samples that was sent to the laboratory was examined and the report discloses that the drugs was not of standard quality. Therefore, the offences as alleged is made out. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for consideration is:

¶53

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the

¶58

following:

¶59

REASONS

¶60

It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 is the

¶61

Company, which is the manufacturer of drugs in question. Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director and petitioner No.3 is the authorized signatory. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even though the drugs in question is being manufactured by petitioner No.1 is admitted, it cannot be said that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were in-charge and responsible for manufacture of drugs. The said contention cannot be accepted at this stage. The Drug Inspector has drawn the sample for test and analysis in Form No.17 on 14.08.2014. Merely because in the complaint there is reference to the Drugs analyst - S Madeena Basha, who is referred to as the approved analytical chemist of accused No.1 firm, that will not absolve the responsibility of accused Nos.2 and 3.

¶62

Learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the letter dated 12.01.2015 addressed to the

¶63

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Warehouse in-charge, District Drug Warehouse, Davanagere, regarding drawing of sample, forwarding one portion to the laboratory and receipt of report as it is not of standard quality and also marking the said letter to petitioner No.1 calling upon it to have its say within 28 days.

¶66

Admittedly, the petitioners have not approached the complainant with any grievance. The materials on record prima facie discloses that the Drugs Inspector has followed the procedure as contemplated under law by drawing sample and forwarding the same to the concerned as required. When the same is disputed by the petitioners, at the most it may be a defence that could be taken by the petitioners before the Trial Court.

¶67

It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not raised any of these contentions before the Trial Court nor they have sought for sending the sample that is submitted to the Court for referring it to laboratory for analysis. It is also important to note that the petitioners have produced informal sample report along with the petition, according to which, the sample of the drugs was sent to the Drugs Testing Laboratory,

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

Government of Karnataka, Bengaluru and the Chief Scientific Officer is said to have tested the sample and issued the certificate with a conclusion that the sample conformed to IP standard with reference to the above test.

¶72

When the petitioners have taken precaution of sending sample drugs to Drugs Testing Laboratory and got the report, they could have transferred one portion of the sample received for testing, which they have not done. When there is prima-facie compliance of requirement of law, the contention taken by the petitioners cannot be accepted to quash the criminal proceedings on flimsy grounds. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take defence before the Trial Court during trial, but the same cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

The criminal petition is dismissed.

¶75

Before parting with the matter, referring to the submission made by the learned High Court Government

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:2032 CRL.P No. 3040 of 2017

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Pleader, learned Trial Court must be alert while deferring trial awaiting orders from this Court. Unmindful fact is that, there is no stay granted by this Court. The Trial Court can very well verify the daily orders of this Court through website and confirm whether there is stay of further proceedings before the Trial Court. Without doing any of these exercise, adjourning the matter indefinitely awaiting orders of this Court will cause prejudice to the complainant.

¶80

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶81

*bgn/CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Minopharm Laboratories v. the Drugs Inspector II

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Minopharm Laboratories v. the Drugs Inspector II

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Goms Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Cauvery Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Smt B C Shantha Vs State by

Smt. Kunti Devi Vs Deepu C G

Venkataramaiah Vs Smt Savithramma

S. Nirmal Choudhary @ Nirmal Soyal Vs State of Karnataka by Cottonpet Police Station

Mr U K Farooq Vs State of Karnataka