Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 18, 22, 27(d), 28-A, 32(2), 36-A, and 36-AB of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Facts
M/s SBS Biotech, a pharmaceutical manufacturer in Himachal Pradesh, was inspected during which inadequate records for the drug Pseudoephedrine were found. The Drug Inspector seized the drug and documents and the complaint was filed.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 18, 22, 28-A, 32(2), 36-A, and 36-AB of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Issues raised
- Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
- Whether offences under Section 27(d) should be tried by the Magistrate or Court of Sessions
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that proceedings were time-barred as Section 28-A carries only one-year imprisonment, attracting one-year limitation. Moreover, Section 36-A permits summary trial by Magistrate for offences with imprisonment not exceeding three years. The Respondents argued that serious irregularities including non-maintenance of registers showed clear misuse, attracting Section 27(d).
Judgement
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complaint under Section 27(d) was filed within the three-year limitation period.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
