The Supreme Court of India in, Hasmukh Lal D. Vora v. The State of Tamil Nadu held that while the inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing a criminal complaint, however, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint.
Facts:
Appellants purchased 75 Kg of pyridoxal-5-phosphate. On 19.11.2013 the drug inspector inspected the Appellant’s premises and alleged contravention of S.18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945. The inspector issued a show cause memo 3 years after this in 2016. A reply to it was timely submitted. Then nearly one year and four months after this, a complaint was filed against the appellant. A section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 petition was filed seeking quashing of the complaint filed against the petitioner which was dismissed by Madras High Court. An appeal was thus filed against the said order of the High Court.
Appellant’s Contention:
It was contended that the drug inspector failed to prove that the said substance is a drug only falling under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, of 1940. Secondly, the said substance is a bulk food substance falling under the definition of “food” as per Section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Rules. Drug Inspector cannot exercise power u/s 22 as it is subject to S. 23. Schedule K and Rules 123 of the act exempt substances that are capable of being used in food manufacture and drug manufacture.
Court's Observation:
The Court in the instant case analyzed its power under Section 482 and stated that the court only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Court referred to the catena of judgments to lay down the power u/s 482. The Court referred to RP Kapur v. State of Punjab to conclude that the court can exercise its powers to quash a criminal complaint, provided that the evidence adduced is inconsistent with the accusations made, or no legal evidence has been presented. In the instant case, no stock of substance was found on the premises of the appellants as alleged by the drug inspector.
Further upon perusal of the legal nature of the substance, it could be said that it 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, 2006. Further, the alleged substance is not included as a drug in the Indian Pharmacopoeia. Further, prima facie, due to the lack of evidence adduced by the Respondent in the four years between the initial enquiry and the complaint, this court could not presume that the alleged substance can only be classified as a “drug”. The court also lastly stated while referring to Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, that inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The decision of the Court:
The Court while making these observations, set aside the decision of HC and quashed proceedings against the appellant.
Case Title: Hasmukh Lal D. Vora v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Citation: 2022 Latest Caselaw 980 SC
Coram: Krishna Murari and Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 2310 OF 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8488 of 2022)
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. K. Ramakanth Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. T.D. Selvan Babu, Adv. Mr. M.S. Rajendran, Adv. Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR Mr. Preetam Shah, Adv.
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR. Ms. Nupur
Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Adv. Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Adv. Ms.
Richa Vishwakarma, Adv.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
