- Case
- MAHADEO S/O SHANKAR JADHAV AND 2 OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAH. THR. AT THE INSTANCE OF SHRI PRAKASH NARAYAN SHENDE, DRUG INSPECTOR YAVATMAL (Bombay High Court, 19-03-2025)
- Law
- Code of Criminal Procedure, Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Facts: A complaint was filed against the applicants, including the Managing Director and a Director of M/s Care Formulator Private Limited, alleging offences under Sections 27(d) and 28-A read with Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The complaint stemmed from a sample of Careclox 500 mg. Capsules, manufactured by the company, being declared "Not of Standard Quality" due to a lower Cloxacillin content. The applicants sought to quash the criminal complaint and related orders, arguing non-compliance with the Act and Rules, and denial of the right to adduce evidence against the analyst's report.
Procedural Posture: The applicants approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the criminal complaint, the order of issuance of process, the order passed by the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application, and the order rejecting the application for discharge.
Issue: Did the Chief Judicial Magistrate err in issuing process against the applicants, and were the applicants denied their right to adduce evidence against the Government Analyst's report, thereby warranting the quashing of the criminal proceedings? Further, was there sufficient application of mind by the Magistrate to establish a prima facie case against the applicants, particularly concerning their vicarious liability as directors of the company?
Holding: Yes, the High Court allowed the criminal application, quashing the criminal complaint and related orders.
Reasoning: The Court found that the learned Magistrate committed an error in issuing process against the applicants, particularly the Managing Director and Director, as there were no specific averments in the complaint establishing their responsibility or involvement in the conduct of the company's business related to the alleged offence. The Court emphasized that the complaint lacked details to determine their vicarious liability. The Court also noted a significant delay in furnishing the analyst's report, prejudicing the applicants' right to adduce evidence in contravention of the report under Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court observed that the complainant took an inordinate amount of time (12 months) to identify the manufacturer, despite readily available information. The Court relied on precedents, including State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd., to highlight the importance of adhering to the timelines specified in the Act and Rules to ensure a fair trial and protect the rights of the accused. The court concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of process, as the Magistrate did not apply his mind to satisfy himself whether a prima facie case has been made out.
