https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97356 This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under drug laws, focusing on limitation, procedural inquiry under Section 202 vis-a -vis Section 200 proviso for complaints by public servants, cognizance by an authorised inspector, and vicarious liability of company officers. It concludes the limitation period began when the offender's identity was established by the inspector, so the complaint was timely; a magistrate need not mandatorily postpone process under Section 202 where an authorised public servant lodged the complaint; and factual questions whether directors were 'in charge' for vicarious liability are not amenable to determination at the quashing stage and must await trial. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:36:14 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:36:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97356 This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under drug laws, focusing on limitation, procedural inquiry under Section 202 vis-a -vis Section 200 proviso for complaints by public servants, cognizance by an authorised inspector, and vicarious liability of company officers. It concludes the limitation period began when the offender's identity was established by the inspector, so the complaint was timely; a magistrate need not mandatorily postpone process under Section 202 where an authorised public servant lodged the complaint; and factual questions whether directors were 'in charge' for vicarious liability are not amenable to determination at the quashing stage and must await trial. Highlights Indian Laws Mon, 02 Mar 2026 18:36:14 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97356