Threshold quashing under Section 482 refused where drug classification and licence compliance required trial, not summary dismissal.

Criminal proceedings alleging manufacture, sale and storage of drugs without a manufacturing licence under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could not be quashed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC merely because the accused claimed the seized products were Ayurvedic drugs. The classification of the goods and the disputed licence position were matters requiring trial, not conclusive determination at the quashing stage. A licence application or later grant of licence did not validate manufacture or sale unless compliance existed at the relevant time. Interference under Section 482 was therefore unwarranted, and the proceedings were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings at the threshold under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the seized products were claimed to be Ayurvedic drugs and that licence/sanction requirements were disputed.

Analysis: The complaint alleged manufacture, sale and storage of drugs without a manufacturing licence in violation of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The question whether the goods were Ayurvedic drugs or fell within the other statutory category was treated as a matter that required trial and could not be conclusively determined at the quashing stage. The mere filing of a licence application or the subsequent grant of a licence did not authorise manufacture or sale in the absence of compliance at the relevant time. The case did not fall within the limited categories in which interference under Section 482 is permissible.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings, and the appeal was allowed.

---