Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482—Quashing of criminal complaint—Exercise of powers by High Court—Consideration—For quashing of a criminal complaint, the court, when it exercises its power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
[Para 8]
Section 482—Quashing of criminal complaint—Ground—Inordinate delay in filing complaint—While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
Held : While this court does not expect a full-blown investigation at the stage of a criminal complaint, however, in such cases where the accused has been subjected to the anxiety of a potential initiation of criminal proceedings for such a length of time, it is only reasonable for the court to expect bare-minimum evidence from the Investigating Authorities.
The purpose of filing a complaint and initiating criminal proceedings must exist solely to meet the ends of justice, and the law must not be used as a tool to harass the accused. The law, is meant to exist as a shield to protect the innocent, rather than it being used as a sword to threaten them.
[Paras 24 to 26]
Section 482—Refusal by High Court to quash complaint—Appeal—High Court while passing the impugned judgment, has failed to take into consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case—While it is true that quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice—Law is a sacrosanct entity that exists to serve the ends of justice, and the courts, as protectors of the law and servants of the law, must always ensure that frivolous cases do not pervert the sacrosanct nature of the law—Impugned judgment passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside—Appeal allowed.
[Paras 28 & 29]
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Section 18(c) read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules of 1945—Contravention of provisions—Refusal by High Court to quash complaint—Appeal—Purchase of Pyridoxal 5 Phosphate alleged and it was claimed that appellants broke up the bulk quantity of impugned substance and sold it to different distributors—Respondent has made no effort to prove that alleged substance is only a drug and not a food manufacturing substance—No scientific evidence or otherwise has been furnished to prove that alleged substance is solely used for manufacturing drug and not food items—Prima Facie, due to the lack of evidence adduced by respondent in the four-year period between initial enquiry and complaint, the court cannot presume that alleged substance can only be classified as a “drug”—Even if it assume that impugned substance is solely used for drug manufacture, even then, the appellants would not be liable under the 1940 Act since appellants already have the necessary Wholesale Drug License as perform 20B and 21B of the Rules—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—Even though complaint was made by the Drug Inspector but no evidence has been provided by the officer to sustain the complaint—No recovery has been made from the premise of appellants, and no evidence has been provided to sustain the argument that impugned substance is categorized only as a drug and requires a specific license—While sale of alleged substance is an admitted fact by appellants, no efforts have been made by officer to prove that alleged substance is a drug which comes only under the purview of the Act of 1940—No efforts have also been made to show that packaging of impugned substance was broken up into various-size packets different from the original packaging from the original manufacturer—No recovery of sold packets has been made to ascertain whether original packaging was tampered with—Even there has been a gap of more than four years between initial investigation and filing of complaint—High Court while passing the impugned judgment, has failed to take into consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case—Impugned judgment of High Court liable to be set aside—Appeal allowed. [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482]
[Paras 16, 19 to 23]
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
Section 3(1)(j)—Pyridoxal 5 Phosphate—Legal nature—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.
Held : 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.
From a bare perusal of the relevant laws and regulations, it can also be seen that 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,
[Para 16 & 17]