Partly allowed

Cadila Healthcare Limited v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Jul 2022CRLP/2134/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the trial court to dispose of the proceedings by passing a reasoned order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding the cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, rejecting quash on merits but correcting the procedural lapse.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dated 06.10.2020 in C.C. No. 2614 of 2020 and directed the trial court to pass a reasoned order taking cognizance afresh if a prima facie case is made out.

Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs the State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

cRt INAL PETITION NO: 2134 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

'1. cadila Healthcare Limited, s,hree Shyam singh Nursery, phase il, Industriar Area, Bhiwadi, Atwar- 301019 Having-its regis[ered offic6'at, 2vJr. Corr-or"t" Park, Scheme No 69, .. Survey^* No.5316,Khoraj iCi"Onl.rgar).^" NJii Vaishnodevi Circte, S. G Highway Ahmedabail_ 382481'.

¶8

Rep by its Authorised signatory Mr. Hiran Trivedi.

¶9

...PETITIONER NO, 1/ ACCUSED NO. 1

¶10

Mr. Nitin D Parekh, chief Financial officer of cadila Healthcare Limited R/o A- 3 Arvaman Bunotows,. Near Railway crosiing, Thaltej_^-Shil;i R;;; Ahme-dabad-38005-9, Gularat

¶11

...PETITIONER NO. 2 / ACCUSED NO. 2

¶12

AND

¶13

1 I!:.S-tgl: 9f Tetangana, Through the Drug tnspector, Marredpaily Zone, secunderabad Hyderabad

¶14

(Rep by P.P, High Court of TS Hyderabad)

¶15

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under section 4BZ of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the lmpugned order dated o6t1ot2o2o in c.c No.2614 of 2020 pending on the file of court of Xl Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, Hyderabacl as against the petitioners.

¶17

l.A. NO: 2 oF 20"22

¶18

Petition under section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memoranrrum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to grant stay of a[ further proceedings incruding the appearance of the Petitioners/ Accused in c.c No.26'r 4 of 2o2o pending on the fire of court of Xr Additional Chief tt4etropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, Hyderabad,

¶19

r.A. NO: 3 0F 2022

¶20

Between:

¶21

1 cadila-Hea thcare Limited,.shree shyam singh Nursery, phase il, rndustriar Area, Bhiwadi, Atwar- 30.10.1g Havingiii relisiereotftice'rt, ZvirJ'iJrJJ,ft" Irt,^{Scheme No 63. Survey" rvo} sjo,khoiai fcrnor,in"llil,^''r.iJri Vaishnodev Circte, S G Highway Ahmed;b;j_'3-BUB1

¶22

a. Rep.by its Authorised signatory Mr. Hiran Trivedr.

¶23

...PETITIONER NO. 1/ ACCUSED NO. 1

¶24

2 Mr. Nitin D F'arekh, chief Financiar officer of cadira Hearthcare Limited R/o A- 3 Aryaman Bunotows Near Rairway^{-.ioiiin"g,''rhartej:} -S;itil'"" " Ahmedabad.3B0O5-9, Gujarar

¶25

...PETITIONER NO. 2 / ACCUSED NO. 2

¶26

AND

¶27

The State Ol Telano.ana, Through the Drug lnspector, Marredpally Zone, Secunderabad Hyd6raoao

¶28

(Rep by P.p, High Court of TS Hyderabad)

¶29

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶30

Smt. D. Swetha Bindu, Durg.lnspector, Marredpally Zone(Sales), Office of the Durg lnspectr>r, Durg- Control Administration, Vlngit Roa NaSai'^-- -^'' Hyderabad- fi000O3B.

¶31

...RESPONDENT/ prop. RESpONDENT No. 2

¶32

Petition under section- 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds or criminii petition, the High court may be pleased to order to impread tne proposeo respondent No.2 to the above criminal Petition and ail rnterrocutory nppriciiLns,-il tne interest of justice.

¶33

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Koushik Kanduri, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.

¶34

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶35

t ,

¶36

THE:IION,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶37

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2134 OF 2022

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking ttie Court to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of XI Additional Chiel Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.2614 of 2O20, d.ated 06.lO.2O2O

¶40

Heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners /Accused Nos.1 ald 2 as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who represented the respondent - State

¶41

The grievance of the petitioners/Accused Nos.l and 2, AS could be c irlled out through the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the contents of the entire order impugned is that the learned Judge of the trial Court, who had taken cogrLizance, failed to assign reasons in the order.

¶42

4 A per:usal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Judge he.s not assigned any specific reasons. However, non-assigrLing of speciiic reasons is not a ground for quashing the proceeding;s that are pending against the petitioners. At the sarne time, this Court considers that the grievance of the petitioners is justifiable that they are entitled to know the basis. on yhich the

Dr CSI-,J Crl P No 2134 o1 2022

¶47

learned Judge has taken cognizalce. Therefore, while setting aside the order rendered in C.C.No.2614 of 2O2O, dated 06'lo'2o2o, the rearned Judge of the court of XI Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, is directed to consider the matter afresh ald to take cognizance of the offences, which are punishable under the provisions of Drqgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in case pimafacje case is made out by the complainant, through a reasoned order.

¶48

This Criminal petition is accordingly disposed of. However, it is made clear that passing of a fresh order by the learned Judge of the trial Court does not entitle the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 ald 2 to take the same as a defence for subjecting the seized product for re-analysis before the Central Food Laboratory.

¶49

As a sequel, miscellareous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

To,

¶51

K.ONESIM DEPUry REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII a SECTION OFFICER

¶52

.'"

¶53

I I

¶54

The Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Durg lnspector, Marredpally Zone, Secunderabad.

¶55

" 4. 5. 6. LS	r!ff"ffi:j:,3;i'0""^Prosecutor,Highcourrrorthe stateorreransanaat OneCCtoSriKoushit< TwocDcr:pies Kanduri' AdvocatetoPUCl One Spare Copy { x\|

t I

HIGH COL'RT

DATED:07 10712022

:==.-
HE s rAi (-
( .<br>'<br>[ 3 AUI 2071 z
r
-,i

ORDER

CRLP.No.2134 ot 2022

THE CRIMINAL PETITON

IS DISPOSI=D OFF.

Cadila Healthcare Limited v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cadila Healthcare Limited v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sowjanya Vs The State of T.S. and Another

Sri.Pola Saikumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sweta Agarwal and another Vs The State Of Telangana and another

Kasturi Adinarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. P Parvathi Vs Smt. Pathloth Mangamma

Chelluboina Veeram Shetty Vs The State of Telangana