TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1104
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1.2013, the then Drug Inspector, Kodambakkam Range, inspected the Appellants' premises and alleged contravention of S.18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945. It was claimed that the Appellants broke up the bulk quantity of pyridoxal-5-phosphate and sold it to different distributors. IV. It is alleged that the Appellant had broken up the bulk quantity of raw materials into various pack sizes containing quantities 0.5kg, 1kg, 10kg and 15kg and had sold the same to various drug manufacturers. V. On 30.03.2016, the Drug Inspector issued a show cause memo to the Appellants after nearly three years. The Appellants, after the show cause memo on 02.04.2016, submitted their reply to the same. VI. On 11.08.2017, after a further lapse of one year and four months, the Respondent, filed a complaint against the Appellants. 4. The Appellants, in the High Court of Madras, sought for quashing of the above-mentioned complaint, and the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.08.2021 on the grounds that a trial was necessary to ascertain the facts of the case, and an order was passed to expedite the trial. The relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ower under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. 9. This Court, in State Of Haryana & Ors. Vs Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Supp 1 SCC 335], has laid down broad guidelines for quashing a criminal complaint as under:- "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto." 11. In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab [(1960) 3 SCR 388], this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: "It is well-established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible ru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ckets) of the impugned substance. However, no stock of the impugned substance was found on the premise of the Appellants. 13. Subsequently, on verification of the sale invoices of the Appellants' company, it was found that the Appellants had broken up the impugned substance and packaged it into various smaller packs. These smaller packs were then sold to various other drug manufacturers. 14. This alleged breaking up of the impugned substance into smaller packages and further distribution of the same is being classified by the Respondent as "manufacturing", and hence a case is being made out against the Appellants under Section 18(c) read with Section 3(f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 15. This Court in R.P. Kapur Vs State Of Punjab (Supra), as mentioned above, has clarified that the court can exercise its powers to quash a criminal complaint, provided that the evidence adduced is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, or no legal evidence has been presented. 16. Upon perusal of the legal nature of the impugned substance, it can be seen that the impugned substance has been categorized as a bulk food substance falling under the definition of food as per Section 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icense. 22. While the sale of the alleged substance is an admitted fact by the Appellants, no efforts have been made by the officer to prove that the alleged substance is a drug which comes only under the purview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. No efforts have also been made to show that the packaging of the impugned substance was broken up into various-size packets different from the original packaging from the original manufacturer. No recovery of the sold packets has been made to ascertain whether the original packaging was tampered with. 23. 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 & Anr. Vs State Of Bihar [(2002) 9 SCC 147], inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below:- "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 ....