Caplet India Private Limited, through its authorized representative, Subrata Kumar Pal v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 420 of 2022 Caplet India Private Limited, through its authorized representative, Subrata Kumar Pal .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus The State of Jharkhand .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ...........
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Banka, Advocate Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. D. Agrawal, APP …... 06 /Dated 02.03.2023. 1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned ACJM, Ranchi, in connection with Drugs & Cosmetics Case No.250 of 2014 whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 2. The petitioner- Company is a Private Limited Company and has the license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 3. As per the case of the prosecution disclosed in the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector on 22.12.2014 on 23.03.2006 the then Drug Inspector conducted a survey of M/s Caplet India Private Limited, Ranchi, in which the samples of drugs were sent for analysis to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata. On 19.12.2008, the said drug ADP-2.5 (Amlodipine Basylate) B. NO.MRT-508 was not found to be of standard of quality. The report stated that the sample does not conform to I.P. with respect to amlodipine content. It was found that although it was claimed that Amlodipine with the standard was of 90% to 110%, but the available content on analysis was found to be 55.95%. 4. On the basis of official complaint, the cognizance has been taken on 30.09.2015 wherein delay of about 6 years in order taking cognizance has been condoned on the ground that certain formalities were required to be observed in form of obtaining sanction for prosecution. 5 The order taking cognizance has been challenged mainly on the ground that there has been total non-observation of procedural formalities as required under Section 23(4) and Section 25(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which vitiates the entire criminal prosecution. 6. Reliance is placed in the case of Karnataka Antibiotic & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. vs. the State of Jharkhand & Anr, passed in Cr. M. P. No.3188 of 2017 (decided on 20.10.2021) wherein the order taking cognizance has been quashed on this ground alone by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. On the point of limitation, it is submitted that there has been inordinate delay of about 6 years and under Section 25(4) of the Act, there is no requirement of sanction for prosecution for offence under Chapter 4 of this
Decision
Act. The reason assigned for delay in the impugned order is, therefore, not justified. Reliance is placed on Cheminova (India) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, (2021) 8 SCC 818 in which the order taking cognizance was quashed on the ground of limitation. 8. Here the offence under Section 25(4) of the Act, 1940, is punishable with 2 years for which the cognizance cannot be taken after more than 2 years from the date when the Inspector comes to know about finding of sub-standard quality of said drugs. As per the complaint, the report was received by the Drug Inspector on 19.12.2008 whereas the prosecution complaint has been filed on 22.12.2014 which is clearly barred by limitation. 9. On the point of infirmity in cognizance order regarding sample, it is submitted by learned SPP for the State that there is no infirmity in view of provision of Section 25(4) of the Act, 1940 which provides that unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory. Here in the present case, the sample had been examined and analysed by the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata and, therefore, the plea of sampling is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the point of limitation, it is submitted that considering the nature of offence which is a crime against social health, the contention of delay does not suffer from any infirmity. 10. The first plea for second opportunity in getting the sample tested cannot be acceded to , as the test has been conducted by the Central Drugs Laboratory and therefore giving the petitioner an opportunity to get it analyzed by some other laboratory is without any basis . It has been held in Ram Shankar Misra Vs State, 1972 ACC 326 the where the sample has already been tested by the Central Drugs Laboratories, the question of giving an opportunity to the accused for challenging its report does not arise. 11. On the point of limitation in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, (1981) 3 SCC 34 the object of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation as follows: ‘3. … The object of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statutes seek to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation’.” In view of the above ratio the right that has accrued to the accused as a result of the expiry of the limitation period is a valuable right that flows from the accused's right to a speedy and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for extending the limitation period requires sound and plausible one to display the court's application of mind. Here in the present case the reason assigned is the time elapsed in obtaining the sanction, which is not tenable as the sanction was not required in the first place. There has been an inordinate delay in cognizance which is barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the order taking cognizance is accordingly quashed. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands closed. Sandeep/ (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)