[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay G Piramal Another vs Union Of India And Anr on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-50482-2023 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.127
CRM-M-50482-2023
Reserved on:-07.04.2026
Pronounced on:-18.04.2026
Uploaded on:- __________
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
Pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment
AJAY G PIRAMAL AND ANR. ...Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU
Present:- Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Dinesh Trehan and Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Advocates,
Mr. Anurag Arora, Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocates and
Mr. Aryan Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Sr. Panel Counsel with
Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents-Union of India.
*****
MANDEEP PANNU, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
for setting aside the impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2023 and for
quashing of Criminal Complaint bearing No. COMA 1781/2023 dated
16.05.2023 (Annexure P-1 (Colly) filed against the petitioners under Section
18(a)(i) read with Section 16(1)(a) punishable under Section 27(d) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that as per the
allegations in the complaint, a sample of the drug "Supradyn Tablets" was
allegedly drawn on 10.04.2019 from the premises of M/s Singla Medical
Agencies, Patiala and was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst on
16.05.2019. The Government Analyst vide report dated 31.07.2019 declared
that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards in respect of
assay of Cyanocobalamin. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 25.09.2019
was issued to the manufacturer, to which reply dated 15.10.2019 was
submitted, seeking re-analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs
Laboratory, Kolkata. It is further submitted that the sample was thereafter
sent for re-testing and as per report dated 26.06.2020, the drug was again
declared as "Not of Standard Quality". It is further contended that despite
the aforesaid facts, the complaint came to be filed only on 16.05.2023, i.e.
after an inordinate delay of nearly four years from the date of the
Government Analyst report and about three years from the report of the
Central Drugs Laboratory, without any proper explanation. It is argued that
such delay vitiates the proceedings and renders the complaint liable to be
quashed on the ground of limitation. It is also contended that the petitioners
have been arrayed as accused merely on the basis of their designation as
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the company and there are no specific
averments in the complaint to show that they were in charge of and
responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. It is submitted that in
absence of specific allegations, vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon
the petitioners. It is further argued that the impugned summoning order has
been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and
without recording satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out. It is
submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider whether
sufficient grounds existed for issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.,
and the order does not reflect any reasoning or consideration of material on
record. On these grounds, it is prayed that the complaint as well as the
impugned summoning order be quashed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has
opposed the present petition and submitted that the complaint has been filed
strictly in accordance with law and after due compliance of the provisions of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. It is
contended that the sample of the drug in question was duly drawn and sent
for analysis to the Government Analyst, who vide report dated 31.07.2019
declared the same to be not of standard quality. Thereafter, upon request of
the manufacturer, the sample was sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory,
Kolkata for re-analysis, which also confirmed the earlier report vide report
dated 26.06.2020. It is further submitted that after completion of the
necessary procedural requirements, including issuance of show cause notice
and consideration of the reply submitted by the manufacturer, the complaint
was filed. It is argued that the delay, if any, stands sufficiently explained on
account of administrative and procedural formalities involved in processing
the matter and obtaining necessary approvals. It is also contended that at the
stage of summoning, the learned trial Court is only required to see whether a
prima facie case is made out and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of
evidence. It is submitted that the material placed on record clearly discloses
commission of offence and, therefore, the summoning order has been rightly
passed. Learned counsel further submits that the plea regarding absence of
specific role of the petitioners and their alleged non-involvement in day-to-
day affairs are matters of evidence, which can be adjudicated during trial and
cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint at the threshold.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record of the case with their able assistance. The short question
which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the
complaint in question and the consequent summoning order can be sustained
in the face of the bar of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of
Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The factual matrix is
not in dispute. The sample of the drug in question was drawn on 10.04.2019
and was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, who vide report dated
31.07.2019 declared the same to be "not of standard quality". Thereafter, on
the request of the manufacturer, the sample was sent for re-analysis to the
Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata and the report dated 26.06.2020 also
confirmed that the sample did not conform to the prescribed standards.
However, the complaint came to be filed only on 16.05.2023, i.e. after a
considerable lapse of time.
5. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the settled legal
position governing the field. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chemnova
India Limited and another versus State of Punjab and another, reported as
(2021) 8 SCC 818, has authoritatively held that the period of limitation in
such prosecutions would commence from the date of receipt of the report of
the Government Analyst, which first discloses the commission of the alleged
offence. It has been further held that the subsequent report of the Central
Drugs Laboratory does not extend or shift the commencement of limitation.
The Apex Court, in clear terms, observed that once the offence stands
disclosed on the basis of the first report, the limitation must be reckoned
from that date alone and a delayed complaint beyond the prescribed period is
liable to be quashed. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-640-2021
titled Ajay Kumar and another versus State of Punjab, decided on
04.02.2026, while relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, has reiterated that the period of limitation under Sections
468 and 469 Cr.P.C. begins from the date on which the offence is first
disclosed i.e. from the report of the Government Analyst and not from any
subsequent or confirmatory report. In the said case also, where the complaint
had been filed after an inordinate delay, the complaint and summoning order
were set aside being barred by limitation.
6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the Government
Analyst report is dated 31.07.2019. The complaint filed on 16.05.2023 is
clearly beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three years. There is
nothing on record to indicate that the delay has been condoned by the
learned trial Court by passing a reasoned order in exercise of powers under
Section 473 Cr.P.C. Mere filing of an application would not suffice unless
the Court, upon application of mind, records satisfaction that the delay
deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. It is also significant to note
that the impugned summoning order dated 03.06.2023 does not reflect any
consideration of the issue of limitation. The order is conspicuously silent on
this crucial aspect and does not indicate that the learned trial Court has
applied its mind either to the question of limitation or to the material placed
on record. The requirement of law is that before issuing process under
Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate must be satisfied that sufficient grounds
exist for proceeding against the accused. The said satisfaction must be
reflected from the order itself. A mechanical order, bereft of reasons, cannot
be sustained. Another important facet of the matter is the prejudice caused to
the petitioners on account of the delay. The valuable right available to an
accused under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to seek re-
testing of the sample is a substantive safeguard. In cases where the
complaint is filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the drug, such right
stands defeated, causing serious prejudice to the accused. In the present case,
the inordinate delay in filing the complaint has clearly resulted in denial of
such statutory right.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled position of
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint in question is ex facie
barred by limitation and continuation of the criminal proceedings would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned
summoning order dated 03.06.2023 as well as the complaint bearing No.
COMA 1781/2023 dated 16.05.2023 and all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom are hereby quashed qua the petitioners.
9. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(MANDEEP PANNU)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
Anu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
