Allowed

M/S Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and 3 Others v. State of Ap.

Telangana HC9 Jun 2022CRLP/1637/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against a drug company and its Directors. Holding the order barred by limitation issues under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and lacking specific allegations for arrest. The sample was sub-standard.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 146 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet are quashed.

M/S Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and 3… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY ,THE NINTH^{DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEA.SANTHOSH REDDY}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO: 1637oF 2014}

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/S Akums^{Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 19,2021'sector6A' llE Sidcul'} ' nrripui Hriidwai-249403 represented by Dharam Chand Jain

¶8

2,SriDharamChandJain,S/oLateTCJainDirectorofAlR/oElO52.saraswati Vihar Delhi-1 10034

¶9

3'SriSanjeevJain,S/oSh.D.C.JainDirectorofAlR/oE-l052.SaraswatiVihar Delhi-110034

¶10

Sri Sandeep Jain,^{S/o Sh.D.C JainDirectorof A1 Rio E-1052' Sarawathi} Vihar Delhi¹ 10034

¶11

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{1 to 4}

¶12

AND

¶13

State Of AP.,,^{Rep by its Drugh lnspectorZonelViiayawadaRepby its Public} Prosecutor High^{Court of AP.,Hyderabad}

¶14

The Drug lnspector,^{Suryapet, Nalgonda District'}

¶15

(R-2 is Comp;ead as^per Court^{Order dated2410112019)}

¶16

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶17

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminalPetition,the High courtmay} U" pf"rt"O to^{quashthe proceedingsof the Crl Case underCC No'146/2013on} the file of the Hon'ble^{Judicial First Class Magistrate} '^{at Suryapet}

¶18

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section^{482 ol cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition,the High courtmay} bepleasedtopassextensionofinterimordersdt.O6/03l202oinl'ANo,2of 2020 in Cr.LP No.^{1637 of 2014}

¶20

¶21

A. NO: 1 OF 20?1

¶22

Petition under section^{482 of cr.P.c prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the ltilemorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition,the Highcourtmay}

¶23

be pleased lo^pass extension of^{interim order madein lANO.2/2020dtd} 6t3t2020^.

¶24

L RLPMP. NO:^'1352 OF 2014

¶25

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the N,4emorandum of Grounds^{of criminal Petition,the High courtmay} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings including dispensing with the presence} of the petitio ne rs/accu sed 1 to 4 in CC^{No.'146 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble} Judl. First Class Magistrate, at^Suryapet.

¶26

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof Sri ASHISH} SAMAT ,Advocate for the^{Petitioner and the Public Prosecutoron behalf of the} Respondent No.1.

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HONOU RA B I-I.] SR I J USTICE .,.S,\ NTI IOSTI R }-I)I)'

¶29

0RDI,-R

¶30

Clltl-.P.No,l6 -17 ()l; l0 l {

¶31

'I his clintinlrl pclirion is lllctl Lrn,jcr SccLitrn "lgl ( r..1).(, r,r qLrash the procc(.diD1ts aquinst th.. pcliti()n!.r.s,,- l t() -.1 in C.('.No.l-16 o1'l() ll. on rlrc lllc ol thc .ludicirrl \lasisrrarc ot' Irir.>l C lass. S r-r rl apct.

¶32

'[ he allegations o1- the conrplaint are thar A- I is the colrpan] and A-2 to A-4 are the Directors of A-l company. The second respondent is the Drug Inspector, who filed complaint against the petitioners. On 26.04.2008 the Drug Inspector visited N,l/s.Venkata Laxrni Medical and Ceneral Stores at Suraypet and has lifted ol Pepti I cer (Rx. Pantoprazole'l'abl er) B.No. IIA j 905 manu t'ac1 Lrred on a 08/2007. [:xpin, datt 07/]00q in quanrirr l5r l0 n hich i: nrarrul.hcturcd hr' ,1,s..,\krrnrs I)rugs lnrl plternmccuticals I rrl.. lluritlrial 1,.-l )lirl titc. PLrr|osg ol lnulr sis urrrl loriur.cl! thc i)1 ia.,)i' lir i() tablcts. Itu |111ij Rs.ll(t - tncl obrliincri c.rs]t nl..,nro rin,.l lcccipt. l'he sccond lcsltttncicnt dir idccl sunrIlg p1 l-ix l0 rrrl-,lcrs into lour portions (one porlion containins l0r I 0 and thrce portions containing 5x l0 tablers. One portion of the sample (5x I 0) tablers

¶33

ASR, J 7 Crtp-1 637-2014

¶34

was restored with^{lWs.Venkatalaxmi Medical and GeneralStores} and another^{portionof the samplei.e' 10x10of peptilcer was sent} to the Govemment^{Analyst, the Drugs Control Laboratory'} Flyderabad by rvriting^{details in Form-18 for the purposeof} analr sis on lE.()4.2008

¶35

:. I lre^{( ,L,r} cttltllctlt^{rttllllr st r iLlu rcil()rt tiltl!t.i ()9'09'10()S'} i,l.It..ri tlliit^{..:lrrllpLe\i.l: n()t i)l 5ltlilrliir(l !lLlilliri\ lts .i,-';llletl irl Llle} l)rrrg. unri⁽ osntctie:^{(t.l.)-1{) rrnrl trtlc:t lle t c:t tl tl .'t.tirI tlre'} rcits()n tilal sarnplc^{tlocsnL)tl)lcctrllc Disintcgrlrtioll lcst as llct l['} 9(; specillcation filr^{Enter.ic ctlated tablets.,. On l (),(X)']0()8 Ictter} llasserr,ecltoNl/s.SriVerrkataLaxmiN4edicaIandCeneralStor.t's. Surl'apet^{requesting to disclose the particularsof personlrom} rvhom drug was obtained^{and to furnishpurchaseinvoiceas u'ellas} particulars of sample^{drug On the sameday Sri Ch'Venkanna} (l-W.2) lurnished cerrified^{copy olpurchasc invoice ol} .1/s.'enkadara^{Associatcs\i ija)au'ada(LW'I).} l hc Drug Insl)ect()r acldressctl^{lt lcttcrt() t-\"1 and [-\ '-] corl:li'trecl thc satnc} hr lctrcr.. rlarcd^{1.1.(19.1()(iii.rnrl sLrbrlliltcd iL i()fr\ oll,'Lrreirrtsc} itlr oie c 1r'orrl \1,:'s^{R lrlltclplisL-s' \ i.ilr eu atla( 1. \ '-1 )} I hc I)tttg Ittsl..,e l,rl lltitii..^{s:cii :t lciltr itl i \ '-1 riitll Ir't',.1} 'l'1^{t() collllrllltlle}

¶36

A5R.J C(lp. 1637 2014

¶37

¶38

sale of sub.jecr drug ro I_W.j and liirnish certilled copies of' purchase invoice and sales par-riculars. On I 1.12.200g, LW.4 in their reply stated that they have purchased the subject drug from IWs.MKS Pharma Ltd., Faridabad (LW.5). On 18.12.2008, the Drug Inspector addressed a letter to LW.5 with a request to confirm the sale of subject drug. On 07.01.2009 Lw.5 in their reply stated that they had purchased the subject drug from M/s.Biochem Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., Murnbai (l-W.6). On 2,1.01.2009 a lettcr was addressed to LW.6 w'ith a rec;uest to contlrnr thc salc. oisLrb.iect dlug. On 07.0j.1009 I \'6 conllrnrccl rltc salc ol'sulriccl cilug to I-W.5. On 1i.0i.2009 asain lcttcl sas rdcllcsscci ro l.\'.(r rvith request to Iurnish purchase irrvoicc. On⁽⁾ I .0-1,1009 I.\'.6 t'umished purchase invoice, dated 24.09.2007, ol' A- I llrrr M/s.Akum Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Haridwar.

¶39

The Drug lnspector addressed a letter on 27.04.2009 to A-l firm to furnish registers and records of the said drug enclosing Analytical repoft. On 25.06.2009 a reminder letter was also issued On 18.07.2009 the Drug Inspector received a letter dated 06.07.2009 fronr A- I rvith cerrilled copie.s o1- clocunrcnrs and

¶40

ASR.] Crip^1617,2014

¶41

¶42

rccords^()l thc subiect^{drr-rg and inlirrnrctl that thef irrterld to adduce} the rr itlcnct in^{(:()ntrl\ cntiort ol ihc saiclre port trntlcr Scction l5(-l)} ol thc l)ruqs rttd⁽ ostuctie^{s i\ct. I9{0 (lbr short "thc} '\ct")'

¶43

'Dre Drr-rg Inspector deposited the second san-rple of thc subject drug under Section^{23(4) ofthe Act in the CourtofJudicial} Magistrate of First Class,^{Suryapet with a requestto forwardthe} said sample to Central^{Drug Laboratory,Calcutta for} 'Disintegration test^{for Enteric coated tablets.'}

¶44

his (r fhc Dlrector. Cenrral^{l)rugl.aboralorv in} rclror.l^(iat.(l r).1.0s.1()09.^{opined that thc santplc llpcstlot confirnll} i,r :r ir.'tlrrlc^V rr! l)lLr!s.ttttl^{( osrlctics ,\ct rrith Iaslcel t() thc icst} I( )l^{"l)ts;tlla1-l.llir)ll.}

¶45

'. lhe L)rLrr' lt't.pcetot^{lllc.l eoltlllleltlt:ts;litl:L111,.'ru1i1iu1111s} 'r11 I l.ll.l0 I I rts llt.'r tllltt.tLtlncttrrctl^{thc ilrr-rg l)cptile cr ll'\oU"\ l9(15} not oi standarcl^{qLralitl' anclsolcl the saure in Yiolatior-rof Section} l8(a) (i)^{pLrnishableunder Section27(d)o1' the Act ancl the said} complaint was^{registered as C.C.No.146of 20li'}

¶46

Leamed counsel for^{the petitioners submittedthat the} complaint is not maintainable^{on two grounds. l'he first one is}

¶47

A5R,J Crlp_1637 _2014

¶48

¶49

petitioner Nos.2 to 4lA-2 to A-4 are the Directors of A- I compan1,. The Drug Inspector in the compiaint stated that A-2 to A-4 are the Directors of said cornpan)'.^'lhroughout the corrplaint. excepr stating that thcy are I)irectors ot'the conrpanv. thcrr.' is r.ro rncrrlir'rn as to the rolc play ecl bv tlrt'm ancl lrou thcv urc re sponsiblc' ior drr to da1' altiirs oi tlrc saicl cornpan\

¶50

The second sround is that tlrc conrplaint is bar':'ed br lirnitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. I..earned counsel tirrlhcr submitted that for violation of Section l8(aXi) of the Act, as^pcr' Section 27(d) of the Act, the punishment prescribed is for a maximum term of two years, the limitation for taking cognizance of above offence is three years as per Section 468 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶51

Leamed counsel subrnitted that as per the allegations of the complaint. the subject dmg was Iilied on 26.04.2008 and the same \as sent to State Covcrnnrcr.rl Anallst and thc report \rs rcccir cd on 09.09.100ti rncl the' conrpluinL is 1llctl on .l l.l l.:()l I r.c. a ltct nrorc than thrr-'c Years lionr th!' datc ol'du'tcction ol ol'fcncc i.e (tt1 09.09.:008. ,As such. thc cornplaint is barrecl lrr linritation rurd thc trial Court is prohibitcd li'orn takirrg cor:nizrrncc o1'the ot'lcnce

¶52

A5R, ] Crtp_1637_20'14

¶53

¶54

I L Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed^{the petition}

¶55

and subrnitted that the subject drug^rvas not of standard^{qualitl, and} as the petitioners \'cre nranulacturers ol'the said drug and at their ir.rstance sccond sanrl-rlc u'as Ibru'arclccl to the^('enlral f)rLrg l-ubolatorr. Kolkatta tirr onlr I)isintclrration tcst lir: l:r.rtcric coatcd talrlcts uncl the said sarr.rplc tas again rlcclurcrl as not ol'stantiard (lrrrlit\ \'itlr rcnrarks thut sarnple cloe's not conllrtr ttt the tcst lirr L)isinrcgration in rlrc lcport. clatetl 03.08.1009. She lirrthcr' sr,rbn.ritte'd that the complaint is llled^rl'ithin the^pcrioti ol limitatiorr of three years as per Section a68(2) Cr.P.C.. as tlte lirnitation commenced lrom 03.08.2009 from the date ol Analyst report of second sample and the complaint was filed on³ 1.12.201 l,^{which is} u,ithin limitation.

¶56

Fleard both the counsel and perused the material^{placed or.r} recoltl.

¶57

I i. l-hc clucstions. rr hich arise lbr consideratiorl in^Lheinstant cusc is thrt. uhcthcr the ltresettt conrplaint^rrotrld lhll^trtrclerthe cltcqorv ol se ction l(rS tl t⁽ r.P.('. artcl rts a^{rcsLtlt.rr ilcthcr thc} trial^('ourt iras barred liorn taking cognizancc ol thc salnc'l

¶58

¶59

ASR, J Crlp 1637 2014

¶60

i'1. ln ordcr to (lgl1.' into thc issuc 1l lt.rrtrl. it ts l)ul.tip!1tL [() Iltsl

¶61

utrderstand thc crlrrtou|s ttl-sc.clrttn {6g Ol'( r.lr.( .

¶62

Section.168 has bccn reproduced as ur.rclc-r:

¶63

.168 Cr.P.C: nar tLr taking cognizance atier lapse of the period of limitafion

¶64

(l) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cogirizance of an offence of the category specified in subsection (2), after the expiry ofthe period of ti,nitat;on.

¶65

(2) The period of limitation shall be_

¶66

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only:

¶67

(b) one year, if the olfence is punishable with imprisonrnent for a term not exceeding one year:

¶68

(c) three vears. il the olfence is punishable with imprisonmcnr for tcrnr excceding one ),ear but not cxceeding three r cars.

¶69

Section 468 Cr.P.C. sriplllates that after the lapse of periocl oi.

¶70

linritati.n. a lrar is rrstituted thar prcr er]1s thc ('.urt rl.orr tiikir.u, cognizarce ol- an oilence of' thc cateso'it's rr hich ar!' cnrr.er.atL'd undc'r Section 468(l) Cr.p.('.^'this bar can onlv bc relaxcd unrlcr. Section 473 Cr.P.C., according to rr hich. an\ (.ou11 has thc discretion to take cognizance of an ol}'ence alier the expiry of thc period of limitation. However, such cognizance needs to be accompanied with a reasonable explanation as to how the Court satisfied itself in extending the period of limitation.

¶71

Now as per Section 468(2) Cr.p.C. the period of limitation

¶72

for any offerice punishable with an imprisonment term exceeding

¶73

A5R, J Crlp 1637²⁰¹⁴

¶74

¶75

one )ear,^{but not cxceecling threevears' is three Years fherelbre'} il the complaint^{is filed after three years of the allegedol'fences} as per Section^{468(2)(c) Cr'P'C'taking place' then a Courtwill be} barred from^{taking cognizance of the same and any Order that is} rendered^{pursuant to this will be without jurisdiction'}

¶76

17 The Supreme^{Court in State of Rajasthanv ' Sanj ay Kumart} ' while dealing^{rvith Section 468 Cr'P C' has observed as ibllows:-}

¶77

" ln rhe ( r.l).('. 1971.^(lhantcr XXXYIhas^hccnatltlcd rlrcset'iilttlglitltit.rtri,ttlilrt.Lkil]gcouttizattccol.ecrtlinoflcnccs lrul, " t,"t,^{1r' (1|gdi1( tl.'t} lttut"tt^{ol(ictceli()ll} .lllld i,rr.lrfig.,ti,,,,^{,.,1-crinrcs ancl ltlsr, t() cllsLlletrl'rscrrllllcls trt lltt} r',rirr.i|i. 1rl^{1.1i1111s'Irl tlt'" ttirrl )ltl'le (\llJIlLJ\ h'I'rrt itlt-} h.lirl((l nr,'.e(tlLt.'rr^{l);l.rr ill} nt(:trirlti('11 'rl "ll(.'!" 'ittl:(: ,,u,i,.," l,,,al.lrip^{irs it kecps titc srrtrttl h'lrlrlillr:,rltlt,.'lle'rtlstrl'} ,,aa,,,,, 1,.rrl.,,]'^{.inJ il ltltt'rcsttlfsitt tllc tlrlttcIi'll} ''r^iticllce g.i,1,,".,,,ri.t,...i.^{llris elrlprtritpplics to all} 'trcll^{ollctle'-'s tirl'} iil1.1i-1,l',ritr,,,.rr1 nrcs'ribe(l^{ir lcss thltn lllrtc rcrtr:' Btrt it} .f.r.a ,ult^{.t!lpl\ t() ,'llan.t' lirr rvhich pLrttishtllcllt prc5crihcrlis} ,rr,,," ,f,rn',irraa lcars^{anclto ccttttolttic ollenccs tttltler rariorts} .,rcts.^{'hicharc crclLrcle.lunr-1er Ccntral} '\ct^{llol l9r"1 or an)} State Acrs- lt^{containssereu sections467-413' Sectiou46T} O"nn"t ,tl"^{exprcssion 'periodol limitation'used in the chaptcr'} Section 468^{cieates bar to takingcognizance of oflercesafter} f"#'"f^{pi"O of limitation'Sections469 to 413 deal with} .iou. urp".,.^{ofcomputationoflimitation' Ofthe} uio."rn"ntion"a^{provisions, we are concernedwith Sections 468} -J^{+OS. Sub-section(1) of Section 468 ordainsthat no Court} .ognirance^{of an offenceof the category specifiedin} Jitt tut " Sru-rl.,i.n iZ;,^{un"t the expiryof the 'period ol limitation'} nr"..rlUea thereunder'^{This. iowever, is subject to the^-other} ;;;"t;t;;;^{of the Code Sub-section (2) postulates diflerent} 'ocrit,d .,f limitation tor oflences rvilh relercnce to the lurirfr,""'l,^{pror ided for tlretr:il the punishmentprovided tbr}

¶78

1998 15 ) SCC 82

¶79

¶80

A5R, J Crlo-1637 2014

¶81

an offence in any Act is only fine, the period of limitation fixed is six monrhs; if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a lerm not exceeding one year, the period oi li-itution prescribed is one year and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three ygars, the period of lirnitation laid down is three years. And Sub-section (3) spclls our the rule ol limitation in cases of. .ioinder^{ol charges:} il a^person is tried lor nture olJences than one. then thc pcriod ol' linritation will bc. detr,-rntinctl s,ith r!'teri:ncc to rll!' ollcncc shich is pLrnishahlc litlt lhc ntor.e sc,,crc ntrnisl'trlclll ot. as lhc eltsc rlar I.,c. tlte rrto:t :crere Irunishntcllt:^lirr crtrntnlc. il' a Ire Tson is tricti lirr rll.iL,Lr:, oll.:nccs rnrl s()ntc ()l ll)cln ilt!, Irunis]till)lc rrith llnc itn,,l sonre r|i1h intprisonr Cltl lirr lt IL.n],1 lcss thtrn lt rt,itr iln(l s()n.tr I(,r rrltich tlrc Irrnr:l)nt(.r'tt i. pt,riiic.l llf\t(, rll:(.( \uirr,. tlt(.n ljt( pcrirrd ol lintirirrion lor all thr, trllinccs. il rhcr irrc rricrl logclhcr. u ill l.rr' thrcc r clrs^'

¶82

A perusal ol' the ntaterial on r-ccorcl indicates that titc complaint under Secrion I 8(a)(i) punishable under Section l7(d ) ol' the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which stipulates punishment for manufacturing and sale etc., in contravention of chapter IV of the Act entails an imprisonment term, which shall not be less than one year and which may extend to two years. Therefore, this punishment fairly falls within the bracket of one to two^years as has been envisaged under Section^{a68(2) (c) oftheCr.P.C'}

¶83

A perusal ol thc^{conlplaintreveals that the Drug Inspcctor} lifted sarnple ol^{dru!r peptilccr(Rx) [,antaprozole rll an Ll t'ac turod b]} lvl/s.AkLrrrs [)urgs^{anrJ ['hnrrl1aceuticals Lirnitctl(A. I ) ilrrll irr} quantity 25x10 tablcts^{and paici Rs.il0'-to\'ar.dsprice o1'liticd}

¶84

A5R, J Crtp-1637-2014

¶85

'10

¶86

tablets and dividect^{into lour parts One portion of the samplewas} scnt to State^{(ior,ernment Analvst.Drugscontrol [-aboratory"} llltlerlrblrdon]8.0.1.]00lraItdon09.09.]008'tltcrcportrvas rcieirc,.l irr^tltc l)ttrl^{lll:pcctol.rt llcicrn thc strlticctclr.L'g dcc]'Irccl} Irs^.'\ttt ol'^{st:rn,.lartl tlLrlrlit.I l1rr.r gr, cr'. the clirltilla] e crltlPlaittt ti rs} illctl on -l l.l l.l0l^L

¶87

Learrrecl^{Assistant I)ublicI)rosecutorcollt!'ndedtirat thc} petitioners on receipr ol^{letter along u'ith chernical anal)'sis repol1} in form-VIII expressed^{theirintention to adduce evidence as per} Section 25(3) of the Act and^{in pursuance of the salne,thesecond} sample was sent to Central Drug Laboratory, Calctttta.^{The report} u'as received on 03.08.2009 and the sample was declared as not of stitnclertl qualitr.^'l hcrelirre. the date ololti'nce has to be taken into c()nsi(lcrati()lr liont^{()1.()S.10()9} und thc lintitation rrotrlcl co:'trntencc ilr)iil t1l.r1 tlrr' t,nlr .rntl n,rt ll.trrtt tlte llr.st rciror-i l.a(.!'i\c(l li0nt thc St.rlc^(iirr rntiltcnl ..\rr.Llr:t rrn 0r).()9.10()S. I ltc :iritl contcntion Ilis rrrr ii,:tt,. Ilte lintir.Lti,rrt r,,tll stlirt ll.orl tltc tjltc ol rrl'lL.ncc i.e. ll.ont tire ii.rlc ,.)l tal)()tl rrlrieh rilrs lllrs IrccI senl^ir,r rltc (ror crnnlenl .\nalr st ancl the santple *,as lbund ro be not ()i' stanclar.cl quaiitr vide report. dated 09.09.2008, which u,as receivccl on 18.09 200g.

¶88

¶89

A5R,J C(lp 16f7 -2014

¶90

S. thc Iarv o1' lirritation co'lrae.ces rionr trrc date ,l' aaar.rst report, dated 09.09.2008 and nor fl.om rhr- date ol second r.eport. rvhich rvas received on 03.08.1009 as contcndecl bv lear.nccl Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶91

2l . After considering the entire ntaterial placed on record, this Court is of the view that after taking into account the law of limitation, the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of detection of offence i.e. on 09.09.200g. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the sample was lifted on 26.04.2008. 1'he sample was sent to the State Govemment Analyst on 28.04.2008 and afler examinarion of the sarnple, the State Governrnent Analyst bv his rcporr. dared 09.09.200g. opined that the sub.iect drLig is nor .r'sranclard qLralit' .s dclinccl in rhc I)r.Lrss and Cosutetics Act. lt)40 lbr. tltc reasorr tltat tlrc sanrplc does not nreet t.hc Disintcg'tition tcsl us ller ll,9(r specitication lbr I:'tcric coated tablets" and the sarnc \'as receir.cd on 1g.09.200g. I'hc, crirninal complaint was filed on 31.12.201 I i.e. after more than three years. The period of limitation had indeed expired, when the criminal complaint has been filed on 3l.l2.2}ll and, therefore,

¶92

AS R. .I CrlD 1637^{20f i}

¶93

1'1

¶94

cognizancL' ol^{the sarne collld not have been taken bv the learned} Magistrate.

¶95

22, Coming^{into the secondground raised by learned counsellor} the petitioners^{that the Drug Inspector has not stated anything} in the complaint^{as what was the role played by the petitioners/A-2} to .--l in thc^{ctxrpanrand llorv the)'are respor-rsible tbr day' to da1} lrl.llrirs oI.tIlc ctllltpallr.^{.\ pcrLrsal trt.tlrc conlllllritlt :tlso rel eals} llt rt rlr... l)t.ut^{lrrsl.rcctrrI lrls |rirt tIr'1.'tti0tlcclatlr tlltng lt[ror.lt the ttllc} l.lll)cctl.).,.]rrl.-.lirrtlle;.tl.1ltirso1.ctlrtll-lltt11'Itl\rlli.lllri/.illt.rll /r:,/irrti l.'t^{('t t'1vtt'Lrtirttt I'irttit'''l t 'llttlttte'cl '!irr,'i/r /"i':l'rl irt ltrtl'r}

¶96

,.r.1(r I'rcld as^ttrltlcr:

¶97

ln a subscquent^{decisiorrin N'K Wahi vs' Shekhar} Singh & Ors..^{(ZbOZ) 9SCC "181 ,,hile lbliorvingthe} pr"J"dents o1' SMS^{Pharmaceuticals'scase (supra)'Sabhita} i{amam.,.thy's^{case (supra)and SarojKumar Poddar'scase} (supra), this Court^{reiteratedthat for launchinga prosecution} asainst the alleP,ed^{Directors.theremust be a spccific allegation} i,i tt. .o*ptu-int^{as to the part played by them in the} transaction.^{ihe relevant portion of thejudgmentis as under:}

¶98

"7. This^{provision clearlyshowsthat so far as the companies} are concerned if^{any offence is committedby it then ever'v} person *'ho is a^{Dircctor or emploveeof the company ts not} iiubl". Onlu such^{person rvouldbc lreld liableil at the trme} rvhen r,,l'f'e'nce is conlnritted^{hc was in charg'c antl u'irs} rc.sponsihlc t!)^{thc con.lpall\tirt thc conducl ol'thc businessol'} thc corn;,an)^{rts rrcll as thc crrnlpan'\ierclrhcing a L)ircctot'}

¶99

I (2010)3 Supreme court Cases 310

¶100

¶101

A5R, J Cdp .1637 ,2014

¶102

of the con.rpany in the absence of abol'c lacttirs will not make him liable.

¶103

To launch a prosecution, therefore, against the alleged Directors there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. There shLould be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The description should be clear. It is true that precise words tiom the provisiolls ol the Act need not be reproduced and the court can always come to a corrclusion in lacts of cach casc. But still. in thc absence of anv averment or specilic evidence the net result tvould be that complalnt rvould not be entertainablc. "

¶104

l.l. Kecpillg in r icri ol' thc trbttr c clccision. in thc instlinr cls., illS() thL' [)t rt! I|.ltcctor' ]tlrs rrol rtltrrlc trrtr \irteiljc .ill,ll.rltrr! 3tlailtst the I)ircctors iLS l() ho\ thrr l1.c ip-.:lllrLc ()1. r.c\l]()1\il.rl. lirr tht' ailhirs ol th. eonrpan\ ls conlclr(lc.l lrr tlrc lcrrr.ncil rt)rlr\r.l lbr the pe-titione rs. Ir) thL' absencc ol'arrr spccirlc a'cr.e.ts ab.Lrt the role of the Direcrors and hou, thev arc rcsponsible in thcconduct of business, the net result would be that complaint would not be entertainable.

¶105

The Drug Inspector has lifted the sample on 26.04.200g and the State Governrxenr Analyst report is dated 09.09.200g ancl thereibre. terrrirrus qr.ro fbr limitation \voLrlcl start lionr 09 09 l00E .[-hc cornplaint rr hich ltas lrtr.n ljitci on .l L I l.](l I I . 1]trlc jirrt,. clcrttlv rlttt trl lrntitetion lrct i()d llte rctil-.ctl Lltticl Sactiln J()|. Cr'.1).(1.^'l-hc rilrht thich is accrLrcd ltl thr' pclili()ncls as it rcsulr oi'

¶106

ASR,J Crlp-'1^637-2014

¶107

¶108

Ihe^{,:rplrr()1' lilnitatiollpcri()dis 3 \llltllihie |i!rht tirat llo$s ll'olti} ihc Pctitiolrers^{ri!.llt to :r spcctiltrnd lirir triel lr: e otrccLltttelizctl} ..rnrte r' .\tticlc I I Lrl tllt^(. ,',, ,11111iotl trl' lttciil'^{I hcrclirlctllc} iorLittiltiitrtl^ol lrtt'e^{cctiitl3: itl ( '( \olJ(r trl' l0l lrtrl the lllc tll} thc .lLrciicial^{\laS.istratcol'I ilst ( lass'Sur'1 rpctlIgLIinst thc} petitioners^{rvotrld bc abuse of processo1' larv atrd irr tl-rc erlds of} justice, the satne are liable^{to be quashed'}

¶109