Telangana High Court

M/S Mancare Laboratories Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2025

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

    THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2938 of 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them

upon a private complaint lodged by the Drug inspector for the

offences under section 11 of Essential Commodities Act,

1955 for the violation of paragraphs 14(1) & (2) of Drugs

(Prices Control) Order, 2013 of S.O.1221(E), dated

15.05.2013 of Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers,

Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India r/w

Para 16(4) of Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of

S.O.1221 (E), Dated: 15.05.2013 of Ministry or Chemicals &

Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceutials, Government of

India read with section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955

in S.T.C.No.15 of 2023 before the file of Principal Junior Civil

Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District.

2. Heard Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.M.Ramachandra

Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on behalf of

respondents. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts in nut shell are that on 24.11.2015

the Drug Inspector inspected the premises of some medical

pharmacies and observed that 'Doxeebest' tablets

(Doxycycline Hyclate Tablets USP 100 mg.) which were

manufactured by the 1st petitioner stocked for sale bearing

Maximum Retail Price of Rs.31.00 per 8 tablets i.e. Rs.3.87

per tablet. But the ceiling price+value added tax for the drugs

in question is Rs.8.736 per 8 tablets i.e. Rs.1.092 per tablet

as per the Gazette S.O.No.619(E), dt.26.02.2015. Therefore,

the drugs were seized under cover of a seizure memo and

deposited the same before the Court on 16.12.2015. After

collecting information from various distributors and

concluded that the drugs were manufactured by the 1st

petitioner and filed the complaint on 18.03.2023.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

there is no material to establish that the 2nd petitioner is

responsible for the day to day business of the 1st petitioner

company when the drugs in question were manufactured and

sold with an MRP in excess of that prescribed by the Central

Government. As per Section 10 of the Essential commodities

Act, when an offence is alleged to have been committed by a

company, it is only the person who was in charge for the

conduct of business of the company at the time of the

contravention, who can be prosecuted. It is submitted that

paragraph 14(2) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 2013 of

S.O.1221 (E), dt. 15-05-2013 states that the overcharged

amount along with interest can be recovered by the

Government in view of violation of paragraph 14(1). When

that is the case, there is no occasion or requirement for the

2nd respondent to launch prosecution under the Essential

Commodities Act after a delay of 8 years. When the

punishment is prescribed in the Drugs (Price Control) Order,

2013 itself, the 2nd respondent is not justified in seeking

alternate punishment by prosecuting the petitioners under

the Act. Moreover, the allegations made in the complaint do

not disclose any violation of paragraph 16(4) of the Order.

The present prosecution is launched after 8 years and there

is no justification for the 2nd respondent for not filing the

complaint immediately. The undue delay violates the rights of

the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to

speedy and fair trial.

5. He placed reliance on a decision held by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Hasmukhlal D.Vora and another v. State

of Tamil Nadu1, wherein it was held as under-

"25. There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the

complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar , inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below: (SCC p. 153, para

7) "7. ... Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if reasonable, plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it."

23. In the present case, the respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show-cause notice, and the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings.

24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint."

Hence prays to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners.

(2022) 15 Supreme Court Cases 164

(2002) 9 SCC 147: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State submitted that this is not a fit case for quashing the

proceedings against the petitioners and prayed to dismiss

this Criminal Petition.

7. Rule 14(2) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order,

2013 reads as under-

14. Fixation of ceiling price of scheduled formulations.- (1) The Government shall fix and notify the ceiling prices of the scheduled formulations in accordance with the provisions of the paragraphs 4 and 6, as the case may be, and no manufacturer shall sell the scheduled formulations at a price higher than the ceiling price (plus local taxes as applicable) so fixed and notified by the Government.

(2) Where any manufacturer sells a scheduled formulation at a price higher than the ceiling price (plus local taxes as applicable) fixed and notified by the Government, such manufacturers shall be liable to deposit the overcharged amount along with interest thereon from the date of such overcharging.

8. On perusal of the record and in view of the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners,

apparently, it is evident that there is 8 years of delay, which

remained unexplained by the prosecution, which infer some

sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings. As per

Rule 14(2) of the control order, it is apparent that when a

manufacturer sells a scheduled formulation at a price higher

than the ceiling fixed by the Government, such manufacturer

shall be liable to deposit the overcharged amount along with

interest thereon from the date of such overcharging.

9. This Court observed that any undue delay in the

adjudication of the proceedings would inevitably lead to the expiry