Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

High Court Quashes Second Complaint Against Drug Manufacturer Citing Double Jeopardy

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has quashed criminal proceedings against Kumar Wanchoo, the Managing Director of Eaton Laboratories, citing the legal principle of ‘double jeopardy’. The court’s decision was announced on December 18, 2023, in a case involving the alleged manufacturing of a drug not meeting standard quality guidelines.

The judgment, pronounced by Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, revolves around two separate complaints against the same batch of a drug named Emlo-A, manufactured by Eaton Laboratories. The first complaint led to a conviction based on a confession by the accused, while the second, related to the same batch of the drug, was still pending.

In his observation, Justice Nargal stated, “This Court is of the view that if the prosecution in the second complaint against the Petitioner continues, then it will amount to allowing the Petitioner who has once been convicted, to be tried for the same offence again.” This key statement underlined the court’s rationale in applying the principle of double jeopardy, protected under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India.

The court noted the similarity in both complaints – the same drug, Emlo-A, with the same batch number, manufacturing, and expiry dates. Despite the samples being collected from different locations and on different dates, the court found that the essence of the offence remained the same.

Further elaborating on the legal principle, Justice Nargal’s judgment reads, “The common principle of law laid down in Section 300 of Cr. P.C read with Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India is that person once convicted or acquitted for commission of offence cannot be tried subsequently for the same offence.”

Date of Decision: 18.12.2023

Kumar Wanchoo VS State

 

Similar News