Simplified Explanation of the Judgment:
The Patna High Court recently addressed a case involving alleged substandard anti-snake venom drugs supplied to a public health center in Siwan, Bihar. The case was initiated by a complaint from the Drugs Inspector who found the sample collected in 2010 to be of substandard quality after testing.
The manufacturer and suppliers, including a Madhya Pradesh-based drug house, faced accusations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. However, they challenged the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in 2015 on the grounds that it was time-barred under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC).
The central legal issue was whether the complaint filed in August 2015 was within the prescribed limitation period. According to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the punishment for the offense (under Section 27(d)) was up to two years. Hence, as per Section 468(2)(c) Cr.PC, the complaint should have been filed within three years from the date of knowledge of the offense.
The Court observed that the Drugs Inspector had received the analyst's report, which confirmed the substandard quality of the drug, by August 2010. Further correspondence also suggested knowledge by October 2010. Thus, the three-year limitation expired by August 2013. Since the complaint was lodged in August 2015 without any recorded explanation or request for condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.PC, the cognizance order was deemed unlawful.
The Court quashed the order, relying on precedents like State of Rajasthan vs. Sanjay Kumar & Others and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reinforcing that courts cannot take cognizance of offenses barred by limitation unless legally justified.
Significance of the Judgment:
This judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in criminal prosecutions. It safeguards individuals from prolonged legal uncertainty and prevents misuse of legal processes. It also serves as a reminder to regulatory authorities to act promptly and within legal bounds.
For citizens, especially those engaged in pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors, the judgment reaffirms legal protections against delayed prosecutions. For the government, it stresses the need for procedural diligence in enforcement actions.
Legal Issues Decided and Court's Decision:
Whether cognizance of offense under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act could be taken beyond the limitation period?
Court held: No. Complaint filed beyond the 3-year limitation is not maintainable.
Whether the Magistrate condoned the delay under Section 473 Cr.PC?
Court held: No. There was no recorded reasoning for condoning the delay.
Judgments Referred by Parties:
State of Rajasthan vs. Sanjay Kumar & Others, (1998) 5 SCC 82
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by the Court:
State of Rajasthan vs. Sanjay Kumar & Others, (1998) 5 SCC 82
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Case Title: M/s Kwality Drug House vs. The State of Bihar & Others
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35589 of 2016
Citation(s): 2024(4) PLJR (621)
Coram and Names of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Names of Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, Mr. Sushant Kumar
For the State: Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
Link to the Judgment:
0 Comments