Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15238 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
1. MR. ABHILASH KUMAR S/O MR. JAGANNATH GUPTA AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A 53 JAMOORATGANJ, MOHIUDIIN PUR, MOTINAGAR, FAIZABAD, UTTAR PRADESH 224201
2. MR. RAMACHANDRA LAL SRIVASTAVA,
S/O MR. P. L. SRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A A-302, EAST AVENUE APARTMENT, AHINSA KHAND-II, INDRIAPURAM, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH 201014. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally AND: signed by LAKSHMI T Location: STATE AT THE INSTANCE OF DRUGS INSPECTOR High Court of Karnataka KOLAR CIRCLE KOLAR 563102
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SPP. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.87/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR U/S.18(a)(i) OF DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT R/W SEC.17-B(d) THERE P/U/S 27(c)(d) OF DRUGS AND COSMETIC ACT 1940. -2-
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for the State.
2. Proceeding in S.C.No.87/2016, pending on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, at Kolar as against petitioners, is sought to be quashed in this petition.
3. In the private complaint filed by the Drug Inspector,
Kolar Circle, Kolar against accuse Nos.1 to 4, petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively. The complaint is filed alleging violation of Section 18(a)(i), read with Section 17-B(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
4. Brief facts of the case are that:
On 18.10.2012, Drugs Inspector, drew the sample of Moclave, (Amoxycillin and Pottassium Clavulanate for oral suspension. I. P.) manufactured by A1 firm from the premises of M/s Sri. Skanda Pharma, for the purpose of analysis. The -3- said sample was sent to Drug Testing Laboratory, which furnished the report on 03.07.2013 declaring that the subject drug was not of standard quality with respect to identification for Clavulanic acid.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged, on the complaint of the Drugs Inspector.
6. Accused No.1. is M/s Perennial Medicare, which
manufacture the drug, accused No.2 is the partner of M/s Perennial Medicare and petitioners, i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 are said to be the approved manufacturing chemist and approved analytical chemist of M/s Perennial Medicare / accused No.1.
7. Accused Nos.1 and 2, challenging the proceedings
preferred Crl.P.No.2830/2017 before this Court on the ground that the complaint was lodged after the expiry of the potentiality of the subject drug and therefore, the valuable rights of the petitioners for further test and analysis under Section 25(4) of the Act was deprived. -4-
8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 24.05.2022, was pleased to allow the petition and quash the proceeding pending before the Sessions Court. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that the proceedings against the petitioners are continued, whereas they are also entitle for the same relief granted to accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above noted petition.
9. It is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.9 to 11 of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2830/2017:-
"9. Section 25 (3) of the Act specifies that any report submitted by the government analyst shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample has been taken notifies the inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample is pending that he intends to adduce as evidence in controversion of the report.
10. Section 25 (4) of the Act specifies that unless
the sample has been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, the accused is given the right to cause the sample of the drugs in question for further test or analysis. The potentiality of the subject drug expired in January 2014 and the complaint was lodged on 21.07.2014. Therefore, the accused is deprived of his valuable right for making an application before the learned magistrate to cause the sample drug in question for further testing or analysis to the central drugs laboratory as specified under section 25(3) and 25(4) of the Act. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against -5-
the Petitioners will be a futile exercise and abuse of process of law since the possibility of conviction of these petitioners is remote and bleak.
11. In view of the above, the taking cognizance of aforesaid offences by the learned Magistrate is not sustainable in law."
10. In view of the findings and reasons assigned in the above referred petition, petitioners are also entitled for the relief sought. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
i) Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceedings pending in S.C.No.87/2016 on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kolar as against petitioners / accused Nos.3 and 4 are quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55