STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus SANJAY KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 132 · Decided: 01-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST A TE OF RAJASTHAN 
" 
SANJA Y KUMAR AND ORS. 
MAYl,1998 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Ss.468(2) (C) and 496(1)-Complaint under SS27(a) and 27(b) (i) of 
C Drugs and Cosmetics Act-Limitation-Computation of-Held, Limitation 
would Commence fi'om date of knowledge of commission of offence to officer 
concerned and not from the date of collection of samples-Drugs and 
Cosmetics Act, 1940-Ss.27(d) and 27(b)(i). 
D 
A complaint under ss.27(d) and 27(b)(i) of the drugs and Cosmetics 
Act, 1940 was filed against the respondents. The Prosecution Case was that 
on 29,2.1988 the Senior Drugs Inspector (I.B) collected from a Medical 
Centre samples of some drugs meant for sale. The Government Analyst in 
his report dated 2.7.1988 opined that the drugs were not of standard quality 
The Drug Collector, after due inquiry :ind investigation, ordered prosecution 
E of the respondents. Accordingly, a complaint was lodged on 28.6.1991. On 
the same day, the Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate took 
cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the respondents. 
F 
The respondents challenged the order of the Magistrate before the 
High Court, which accepted the contention of the respondent that the com plaint 
was barred by limitation under s.468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal procedure, 
1973, and quashed the proceedings. Aggrieved, the state filed the present 
appeal. 
It was contended for the state that the High Court erred in computing 
G the period of limitation from the date of collection of the samples instead of 
from the date of report of the Government Analyst. On the other hand ,the 
respondents contended that the date when samples were collected was the 
date of the offence and starting point of the limitation and counting from that 
date the complaint was barred by limitation. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
132 
·-
-
' 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SAN JAY KUMAR 
133 
HELD: 1.1. The limitation for the purpose ofs.468(2)(c) of the Code A 
of Criminal procedure, 1973 will commence from July 2, 1988, the date of 
;.. 
knowledge of the commission of offence to the concerned officer under 
s.469(l)(b) but not from February 29,1988 (the date of collection of samples 
by the Drugs Inspector) and, as the complaint was filed on June 28,1991 
'-
which is within three years, the complaint is not barred by Limitation under B 
S.468(2)(c). The High court has missed this germane aspect and erroneously 
took the date of commencement of the limitation as February 29, 1988, the 
date on which the samples were collected by the Drug Inspector. The High 
Court has committed illegality in so computing the period oflimitation which 
-~ 
results in miscarriage of justice. [137-G-H; 138-A) 
c 
1.2. On February 29,1988, the date of collection of samples, it could 
not have been said that any offence was committed as selling of drugs per 
se is no offence and the quality of the drugs was not known to the Drugs 
Inspector, the complainant, on that date. It is only, when the report of the 
Government Analyst was received, that it came to light that the provisions 
of the Act are violated and offence is committed. So, on the facts of the case, D 
it cannot be said that clause (a) of s.469(1) is attracted. That the drugs which 
' 
were offered for sale were sub-standard/adulterated, within the meaning of 
• 
the Act, came to the knowledge of the Drugs Inspector only on July 2,1988 
when the report of the Government Analyst was received by him; and therefore, 
clause (b) of s.469(1) will be attracted. [136-G-H; 137-AJ 
E 
R.S. Arora v. The State, (1987) Crl. Law Journal; 1215 Omprakash 
Gu/abchandji Partani v. Ashok & Anr., (1992) Crl. LJ. 2704 and Mis 
Satyanarayana General Traders & Ors., v. State, (1993) 2 Crimes 203, 
approved. 
F 
l 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.532of 1998. 
f'.rom the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.96 of the Rajasthan High Court 
in Crl.M.P. No. 293of1996. 
G 
Aruneshwar Gupta, Srilok Nath Rath and Ms. Reena Bagga for the 
Appellant. 
...... 
K. Janjani for the Respondents . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
134 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
QUADRJ, J. Special leave is granted. 
The state of Rajasthan has assailed the validity of the judgment and 
order of the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 293 of 1996 
dated April 11, 1996. 
B 
On February 29, 1988, the Senior Drugs Inspecto
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.