The division judge bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt of the apex court in the case of Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr Vs The state of Tamil Nadu held that the 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant no. 1 proprietor of an established company M/s. Chem Pharm and appellant no. 2 is the son and employee of Appellant No. 1. During the course of business, the appellant purchased 75 Kg of pyridoxal-5-phosphate. Thereafter, 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. It was claimed that the Appellants broke up the bulk quantity of pyridoxal-5-phosphate and sold it to different distributors. After 3 years, the drug inspector showed a show cause memo to the appellants and the appellant also replied to the same. After a further lapse of one year and four months, the Respondent filed a complaint against the Appellants. The appellant filed before the high court for quashing of the complaint, however the same was dismissed on the ground that a trial was necessary to ascertain the facts of the case, and an order was passed to expedite the trial.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the respondent has failed to give any prima facie evidence and the impugned substance (pyridoxal-5-phosphate) 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 and Regulations thereunder, and not a drug under Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was also submitted that the respondent cannot exercise powers under Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as it is subject to Section 23 of the same Act. the appellant also has a valid wholesale drug licence in forms 20B and 21 B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgements titled State Of Haryana & Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy & Anr, and R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab and held that the 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 the 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. The 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.
CASE NAME- Hasmukhlal D. Vora & Anr Vs The state of Tamil Nadu
CITATION- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2310 OF 2022
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8488 of 2022 )
CORUM- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt
DATE- 16.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
