TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the complaint and cognizance were barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code vitiated the summoning process when the complaint was made by a public servant. (iii) Whether the High Court could quash the prosecution for alleged deficiency in pleading the role of company directors under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Issue (i): Whether the complaint and cognizance were barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The limitation period for the offence punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was three years. The Court held that, on the facts, the relevant starting point was the date on which the identity of the accused became known during the investigation, not the initial complaint by the private informant. The complaint before the court was filed within three years from that point, and the delay was therefore within the permissible period.
Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the finding was in favour of the Appellants.
Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with Section 202 of the Code vitiated the summoning process when the complaint was made by a public servant.
Analysis: The Court read Sections 200 and 202 of the Code harmoniously and treated a complaint by a public servant acting in discharge of official duty on a different footing. Reliance was placed on the earlier view that the object of an inquiry under Section 202 is to prevent unnecessary harassment, but that the statutory setting does not justify quashing where the complaint is by a public servant and the case is otherwise supported by official action. The Court rejected the distinction sought to be drawn on facts and held that the mandatory inquiry point did not justify interference in the present case.
Conclusion: The challenge based on Section 202 failed and was decided in favour of the Appellants.
Issue (iii): Whether the High Court could quash the prosecution for alleged deficiency in pleading the role of company directors under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Analysis: The Court held that questions whether the directors were in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business were matters of fact that should ordinarily be tested at trial. The High Court's conclusion that the complaint was insufficient on that aspect was found to be premature.
Conclusion: The quashing on the ground of Section 34 was unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the Appellants.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution was restored in the appeals where the quashing order was set aside, while the separate accused appeal was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the present appeals and would not prejudice the trial on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution initiated by a public servant under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the limitation period may commence when the identity of the accused is ascertained during investigation, and the requirement of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code does not warrant quashing where the complaint is by a public servant acting in discharge of official duty and the challenge is otherwise premature.
TaxTMI 
