STATE OF KERALA versus ORISON J FRANCIS & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 428 · Decided: 04-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 428 
STATE OF KERALA 
v. 
ORISON J FRANCIS & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2008) 
NOVEMBER 4, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - ss.3(a), 3(b) and 18 
C (c) rlw 27(b)(ii) -
Complaint that Respondents were 
manufacturing, selling and storing drugs within definition of 
s.3(b), without requisite licence - Proceedings in Court of 
Judicial Magistrate - Respondents filed petition under s.482 
CrPC contending that the drugs seized belonged to 
o "Ayurvedic" category which are dealt with under s.3(a) and not 
under s.3(b) and hence the said complaint could not have 
been filed - High Court quashed proceedings instituted 
v 
against the Respondents - On appeal, held: Whether the 
goods seized were Ayurvedic Drugs or not could only be 
E decided in trial - Additionally Respondents did -not possess 
the requisite licence - Mere fact that application for licence 
was filed, did not entitle Respondents to manufacture and/or 
to sell the concerned drugs - High Court, therefore, was not 
justified in quashing the proceedings -
Threshold 
F interference by High Court in exercise of power under s.482 
CrPC was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the 
case - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. 
Pursuant to a complaint under s.18(c) rlw s.27(b)(ii) 
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, proceedings were 
G instituted against the accused- Respondents in the Court 
of Judicial Magistrate. It was alleged that the 
Respondents were manufacturing, selling and storing 
i 
drugs within definition of s.3(b), without requisite licence. 
H 
428 
.. 
STATE OF KERALA v. ORISON J FRANCIS & ANR. 
429 
Respondents filed petition under s.482 of CrPC inter A 
alia contending that the drugs seized belonged to 
"Ayurvedic" category which are dealt with under s.3(a) 
and not under s.3(b) and consequently the said complaint 
could not have been lodged. 
Appellant, on the other hand, contended that th~ 8 
dispute as to whether the goods seized were Ayurvedic 
Drugs or not could only be decided in trial and threshold 
interference by the High Court was not called for, 
Additionally it was submitted that since Respondents did c 
not possess licence, the High Court had no power of 
interference. 
The High Court quashed the proceedings instituted, 
against the Respondents in the Court of Judicial 
Magistrate. Hence the present appeal. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
L 
HELD: Whether the goods in question are Ayurvedic 
drugs is essentially a matter for trial. Also, a licence was 
required for dealing with the drugs. The mere fact that the 
E 
application for licence was filed, did not entitle the 
Respondent to manufacture and/or to sell the concerned 
drugs. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in 
quashing the proceedings. This is a not a case where 
). 
threshold interference by exercising power under 
F 
! 
Section 482 of the Code was called for. The present case 
does not belong to any of the categories given by this 
Court in Bhajan Lal's case by way of illustration wherein 
power under Article 226 of the Constitution or inherent 
powers under s.482 of CrPC can be exercised either to G 
prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise 
~ 
to secure the ends of justice [Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9] [432-D; 
) 
433-A, B; 433-D, E] 
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp 1SCC 335, 
relied on. 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
Case Law Reference: 
(1992) Supp 1 sec 335 relied on 
Para 8 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1723 of 2008. 
B 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.11.2006 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal M.C. No. 1135 
of 2006. 
R. Sathish for the Appellant. 
:, 
c 
S.K. Agarwal, Arun K. Sinha and Rakesh Singh for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned 
Single Judge quashing the proceedings in CC No. 917 of 2004 
l 
in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. 
E 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
A complaint was filed alleging commission of offences 
punishable under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) of 
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short the 'Act'). 
F Allegation was that the three accused persons were 
j 
manufacturing and selling and storing DXN Ganocelium (GL) 
\ 
and DXN Rishi

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