HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 113 · Decided: 16-12-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
113
HASMUKHLAL D. VORA & ANR.
v.
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 2310 of 2022)
DECEMBER 16, 2022
[KRISHNA MURARI AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
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.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 113
113
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
115
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,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.