Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of Criminal complaint – Before High Court, appellant sought for quashing of complaint filed against him for contravening provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, which was dismissed – On appeal, Held: The Court, while exercising its power under s.482 only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence – Quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases but still it is the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice – In the instant case, no stock of impugned substance was found in the premises of the appellants – Even the impugned substance has been categorized as a bulk food substance falling under the definition of food as per s.3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – The alleged substance is not included as a drug in the Indian Pharmacopoeia which further proves that it does not require license u/the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Further, there has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint – Moreover, respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the complaint – While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint – Hence, proceeding pending against appellants to be quashed – Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. For the quashing of a criminal complaint, the Court, when it exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. The Respondent, in the impugned complaint, stated that during the inspection of the Appellants’ premises, it was found that the Appellants had purchased 75 kg (as 3 x 25 kg packets) of the impugned substance. However, no stock of the impugned substance was found on the premise of the Appellants. [Paras 8 and 12][118-E-F; 122-A-B]
2. Upon perusal of the legal nature of the impugned substance, the impugned substance has been categorized as a bulk food substance falling under the definition of food as per Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The impugned substance has specifically been mentioned as a food ingredient in Serial No.4(ii) of the Schedule-I of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2016. The alleged substance is not included as a drug in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. The fact that it is mentioned as “food” as per Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, further only proves that the impugned substance does not require a specific license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. [Paras 16 and 17][122-E-F]
3. Respondent has made no effort to prove that the alleged substance is only a drug and not a food manufacturing substance. No scientific evidence or otherwise has been furnished to prove that the alleged substance is solely used for manufacturing drug and not food items. Prima Facie, due to the lack of evidence adduced by the Respondent in the four-year period between the initial enquiry and the complaint, this court cannot presume that the alleged substance can only be classified as a “drug”. If it is assumed that the impugned substance is solely used for drug manufacture, even then, the Appellants would not be liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 since the Appellants already have the necessary Wholesale Drug License as per form 20B and 21B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. In such a scenario, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken in toto, no case for an offence would still be made out, making the entire process frivolous. [Paras 19 and 20][123-B-D]
4. In the present case, the Respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice, and the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint. [Paras 24 and 25][124-D-E]
5. The High Court while passing the impugned judgment, has failed to take into consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice. The law is a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, and the courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law. [Para 28][125-A-C]
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (1992) Supp 1 SCC 335 : [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 387;
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 522 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 147; R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [1960] 3 SCR 388; Bijoy Singh & Anr. v. State Of Bihar (2002) 9 SCC 147 : [2002] 3 SCR 179 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.