Criminal Complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Quashed – Barred by Limitation: PH HC
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a criminal complaint under Drugs and Cosmetics Act case and all consequential proceedings on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The judgment, delivered by Justice Harkesh Manuja, emphasized that once the report of the Government Analyst was received by the authorities, any subsequent complaint filed after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation was invalid.
The case revolved around a complaint filed under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, wherein the petitioner, Innova Captab, sought the quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 2 of 08.06.2012 and all related proceedings. The petitioner was charged with an offense under Section 28 for contravening the provisions of the Act.
According to the facts presented, an inspecting team had visited a chemist shop and collected samples of allopathic drugs for testing. Subsequently, the drugs were found to be non-conforming to the standard quality. The complaint, however, was filed several years later, which led to the contention of being barred by limitation.
Justice Harkesh Manuja, in the judgment, noted that the limitation period for filing a complaint under Section 28, punishable with a maximum imprisonment term of one year, expires as per Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The report from the Government Analyst was received on 05.03.2009, and the complaint was filed on 07.06.2012, approximately three years and three months after the limitation had expired. Consequently, the court held that the summoning order issued by the Additional Sessions Judge was beyond jurisdiction.
The court further addressed the issue of maintaining a criminal complaint against a company without impleading its authorized representative. It stated that such proceedings were futile as the sentence of imprisonment cannot be imposed on a juristic person. The court referred to the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2005) 4 SCC 530, where a similar view was upheld. An application seeking amendment to implead the responsible persons of the company was also doubted for its maintainability.
The judgment also highlighted that the report from the competent authority cannot be the basis for the commencement of the limitation period. The limitation period should be computed from the date of the offense alleged to have been committed, not the date of the report received.
Given these findings, the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the petition, thereby quashing Criminal Complaint Case No. 2 of 08.06.2012 and all subsequent proceedings. The court also disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications in the matter.
Date of Decision: June 2, 2023
Innova Captab vs State of Haryana
