UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

 

Latest Legal News