Brief Facts
- The Respondent Drug Inspector drew samples of two batches of a drug named Rabeprazole Tablets from a medical shop named City Medicals in Kozhikode, Kerala on 29.01.2010. The said drug is manufactured by the company named Indica Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. of which the Appellants are the directors.
- Reports were obtained on 30.03.2010 and 09.04.2010 respectively disclosing that the drug was not of the standard quality as it does not comply with the test ‘Related Substances and Assay’
- Thereafter, the Respondent-Drug Inspector filed two complaints, under section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 19401 against the Appellants, alleging, inter alia, commission of an offence for the violation of section 18(a)(i) of the Act punishable under section 27(d) of the Act for selling sub-standard quality drug.
- The Appellants preferred application praying that further proceedings are not maintainable on the ground that cognizance was taken/complaints were filed after the expiry of the limitation period as prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- The Trial Court dismissed both the applications and returned the finding that there was no delay since the time taken to send out the notice of prosecution as well as in the collection of details of the Appellants had to be excluded and thus, both the complaints were well within the period of limitation.
- The High Court vide order dated 05.12.2023 upheld the view of the Trial Court. Hence, the present appeals were filed before the Supreme Court of India.
Issues
- Whether the complaints under Drug & Cosmetics Act were barred by the period of limitation prescribed under CrPC?
Held
- Appeals were allowed and the complaints were quashed on the ground of limitation itself. The findings of the Court are as under:
- As the Drug Analyst report in the present case was received on 30.03.2010 and 09.04.2010, therefore, the limitation period by virtue of Section 469(a) of CrPC shall commence from that respective date when the said reports when received. Further the complainants were well aware about the particulars of the company from the very beginning.
- The complaint is filed by the Respondents only on 24.06.2013 and 03.07.2013, which is beyond the statutory time limit.
- Thus, the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the High Court that certain delays undertaken for the purposes of ascertaining the constitutional particulars of the appellant’s company have to be condoned, is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
- In addition to this, the complainant has not raised any plea requesting either condonation of delay or exclusion of time before the Court explaining the delay in filing the complaint. Both the Courts below have exceeded their power in awarding a benefit that was never claimed by the respondents.
Relevant Para No.
- 8, 9, 10 and 14