Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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