Karnataka High Court

Sri Arun Kumar Pillai vs Union Of India on 14 December, 2021

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.7321/2017

                           C/W

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.8347/2014


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7321/2017


BETWEEN

SRI VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAN IYER
S/O P.N.SUBRAMANIAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT L-204,
MANTRI WOODLANDS
AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076.
                                               ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)

AND

UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY DRUGS INSPECTOR
O/O ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER (I)
CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION
SUB- ZONE, 2ND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                       ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GAUTAMDEV C. ULLAL, CGC)
                                2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE SPECIAL COURT FOR
ECONOMIC OFFENCES AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.349/2014.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8347/2014


BETWEEN

1.    SRI ARUN KUMAR PILLAI
      S/O NEELAKANTA KARUNAKARAN PILLAI,
      E-102, ADARSH GARDEN,
      JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK
      BENGALURU - 560 082.

2.    SRI PALLIPURAM MATHAI THAMPI
      2B MARTHAS PLACE 58 LAVELLE ROAD
      5TH CROSS,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.
                                           ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)


AND

UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY DRUGS INSPECTOR
O/O. ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER (I)
CENTRAL DRUGS STANDARD CONTROL ORGANIZATION
SUB-ZONE, 2ND FLOOR,
PALACE ROAD
BANGALURU - 560 001.
                                       ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GAUTAMDEV C. ULLAL, CGC)

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
                                    3




ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BEL SPL. COURT (ECONOMIC
OFFENCES) AT BANGALROE, IN C.C.NO.349/2014.


     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.5 to 7 in

C.C.No.349/2014, have filed these subject petitions calling in

question the proceedings pending in C.C.No.349/2014.

2. Heard Sri Mahesh S., learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Sri Gautamdev C. Ullal, learned Central Government

Counsel appearing for the respondent - State and perused the

material on record.

3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition

as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

The Inspector of the Drugs Control Department,

Bengaluru, visited the Company - Onco Therapies Limited on

11.06.2014, during the inspection, it was noticed that the

Company has manufactured three batches of Epirubicin

Hydrochloride injection 200 mg/100 ml, having certain batch

numbers with the manufacturing date mentioned as May, 2013

and June, 2013 and an expiry date as April, 2015. It is alleged

in the complaint that such products were manufactured and

exported, without license as obtaining in Form 28D, which was

to be obtained under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. It

is not in dispute that the petitioners who are accused Nos.5 and

6 are Directors of the Company and accused No.7 is nowhere

connected with the Company and there are no allegations

against accused No.7, even in the narration of the complaint.

4. This Court in respect of other accused Nos.2 to 4, who

are the Directors of the Company, has quashed the impugned

proceedings in Crl.P.No.310/2015, disposed on 07.08.2018,

holding as follows:

"8. Looking to the contents of the complaint, as it is rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, in para No.4 of the said private complaint, it is stated that accused No.1 M/s. Onco Therapies Limited, represented by its Directors, that accused Nos.2 to 6 are the Directors of the company, accused Nos.7 and 8 are the

Manufacturing Chemist of the Company, accused No.9 is Senor Director, Quality Assurance of the Company, accused Nos.10 to 12 are Quality Control Chemist of the Company.

9. I have also perused the other paragraphs in the said private complaint. Except the averments as found in para No.4, there are no specific averments in the complaint that as on the date of manufacturing of the said drugs, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 were responsible for the day today affairs of the said Company. Further, there is no averment that accused Nos.2 to 4 were participated in the said business of the Company and hence they are responsible for the said act of the Company in producing such drugs. When there are no such averments made in the complaint, even if the trial is proceeded with and in the trial also, this will be the aspect which has to be considered. Therefore, it will be a waste of valuable time and energy of the Court in case, trial is permitted to be proceeded with as against accused Nos.2 to 4.

10. Apart from that, it is the specific contention of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 that as on the date of the alleged act said to have been committed by accused No.1-Company, they were not at all the Directors of the

said Company and they became the Directors of the said Company subsequently on 5.12.2013 and the said fact is supported by documents. When that is so, the question of fastening liability on the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 does not arise.

11. I have perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate in support of his arguments along with the list of authorities so also I have perused the order of this Court dated 7.8.2017 passed in Crl.P. No.5392/2017, wherein this Court has held that Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is similar to Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

12. Considering all these legal aspects also, I am of the opinion that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 have made out that the case initiated against them is abuse of process of Court and with malafide intention. Hence, petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are hereby quashed."

In the light of the judgment rendered by this Court supra,

insofar as it pertains to accused No.2 to 4 in the very same

C.C.No.349/2014, the same would become applicable to accused

Nos.5 and 6 as well, as accused No.5 ceased to be the Director of

the Company as is found in the public document - Form 32,

dated 05.12.2013 and the inspection of the premises was held

on 11.06.2014. Insofar as it concerns accused No.6, he has

resigned from the post of the Director of the Company with effect

from 10.03.2008, long before i.e., six years before the inspection

by the Inspector, which took place on 11.06.2014. Against both

the accused Nos.2 to 4, the findings rendered by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the criminal petition No.310/2015 (supra)

would apply on all its fours. Therefore, the criminal proceedings

against accused Nos.5 and 6 stand obliterated.

5. Insofar as it concerns accused No.7, who holds no

position in the Company and even the complaint, it does not

allege any act committed by him. Since the complaint is

omnibus and does not contain the name of accused No.7,

without particularisation of any such act committed by him, the

proceedings against the said accused on the face of it, would be

rendered unsustainable.

6. For the aforesaid reasons and following the judgment

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, inter alia as aforesaid, the

following:

ORDER

a. The criminal petitions are allowed.

b. The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.349/2014, pending on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offence, Bengaluru, stand obliterated.

c. During trial, if it is found that these petitioners as Directors had specific role in the commission of the alleged offences, it is open for the trial Court to take cognizance against such Directors, in exercise of power under Section 32(A) of the Act.