Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 17, 18, 27, 32, and 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Sections 200, 202, 468, 469, and 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Facts
A discrepancy was discovered in the labelling of a pentavalent vaccine manufactured by Panacea Biotec Ltd. The Drugs Inspector filed a complaint alleging misbranding under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The High Court quashed the complaint for non-compliance with Section 202 CrPC.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 17, 18, 27, 32, and 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Sections 200, 202, 468, 469, and 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Issues raised
- Whether the limitation period for filing the complaint had expired.
- Whether the enquiry under Section 202 CrPC was mandatory when the complainant was a public servant.
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that public servants filing complaints in official capacity stand on a different pedestal; Section 202 enquiry is not mandatory for complaints by public servants. The Respondent on the other hand argued that the 2005 Amendment to Section 202 CrPC made enquiry mandatory without any exception for public servants.
Judgement
The Court held that limitation commenced only when the identity of all accused was established, making the complaint within the limitation.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
