Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against Income Tax Reassessment, Directs Petitioner to File Appeal Adultery Requires Proof of Sexual Relations, Mere Emotional Attachment is No Ground to Deny Maintenance: MP High Court Co-Sharer Cannot Sell Specific Land Without Partition: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Mutation Illegal When Best Evidence is Withheld, an Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn Against the Prosecution: Supreme Court Slams State for Procedural Lapses When the State Itself Did Not Challenge the Earlier Judgment, Third Parties Cannot Litigate on Its Behalf: Supreme Court When Parties Have Agreed to a Fixed Compensation, Courts Cannot Rewrite the Contract to Award Additional Damages: Supreme Court When an Employer Deprives an Employee of Work Through Illegal Action, They Must Face the Consequences: Supreme Court Condemns State Transport Corporation’s “Fraud on Court” Possession Handed Over Before the Sale Deed Makes the Agreement a Conveyance: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Stamp Duty Demand Promissory Estoppel Cannot Override Public Interest: Supreme Court Upholds Goa’s Power Tariff Rebate Withdrawal Tenants Cannot Stall Public Projects Indefinitely; Eviction Under MRTP Act is Legally Valid: Bombay High Court High Court Cannot Reassess Labour Court's Findings Like an Appellate Body: Delhi HC Consensual Physical Relationship Over Four Years Cannot Constitute Rape Under Section 376(2)(n): Karnataka High Court An Injured Witness Comes with a Built-In Guarantee of Truth: Allahabad HC Eviction Cannot Be Ordered Solely Because Evidence is Unrebutted: Kerala HC Encroachment Claims Do Not Justify Forcible Dispossession: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Injunction, Dismisses Appeal Limitation | An Educated Litigant Cannot Claim the Same Protection as an Illiterate One: Delhi HC Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe’s Trademark Infringement Suit Against BundlePe & LatePe Bare Injunction Suit Unsustainable Without Declaration of Title When Ownership is Disputed: Karnataka High Court SARFASI | Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Essential in SARFAESI Matters: Kerala High Court Once Penalty Period Ends, Employee Must Be Reconsidered for Promotion: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products

31 January 2025 6:47 PM

By: sayum


Summoning an Accused is a Serious Matter—Mechanical Orders Cannot Sustain in Law- Supreme Court in a significant ruling quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against INOX Air Products Limited and its Managing Director under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court held that the sale of Nitrous Oxide I.P. by a licensed manufacturer to another licensed entity engaged in repackaging and distribution did not constitute an offense. It further criticized the mechanical manner in which the Trial Court had issued summons, declaring that "summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and requires due application of mind."

The bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings, concluding that both the seller and buyer possessed valid Form 25 manufacturing licenses, and that the prosecution failed to establish any violation of law. "The term ‘manufacture’ includes altering, breaking up, packing, and relabeling a drug with a view to sale or distribution. The contention that a Form 25 license is subject to a Form 20B wholesale license is legally untenable," the Court observed.

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Kadapa, alleging that INOX Air Products Limited (Accused No. 5) had sold Nitrous Oxide I.P. to an unlicensed firm, M/s. R.S. Gas Products (Accused No. 3). The complaint contended that this transaction was in contravention of Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and punishable under Section 27(d).

According to the prosecution, RIMS General Hospital, Kadapa, had procured Nitrous Oxide I.P. from Accused No. 1, which lacked the necessary license. The Drug Inspector traced the supply chain to INOX Air Products and concluded that INOX had violated Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which mandates that wholesale sales must be made only to licensed entities.

Based on this complaint, the Trial Court took cognizance on January 20, 2018, and issued summons to the appellants. Seeking relief, the appellants moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that they were engaged in a legally permissible transaction. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition on January 12, 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court framed two key issues in this case. First, whether a sale of Nitrous Oxide I.P. between two licensed manufacturers required a Form 20B wholesale license. Second, whether the summoning order, issued without any reasoning, was legally sustainable.

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution had fundamentally misunderstood the legal framework governing pharmaceutical manufacturing and sale. "Manufacturing includes any process of making, altering, breaking, packing, or relabeling with a view to sale or distribution. Since the buyer in this case was engaged in breaking down and repackaging the drug, it was engaged in a legitimate manufacturing process," the Court observed. The mere fact that Accused No. 3 did not hold a Form 20B wholesale license did not make the transaction unlawful, since both parties were licensed under Form 25, which authorized repackaging and further sale.

The Court emphatically rejected the High Court’s interpretation that a Form 25 license was "subject to" a Form 20B license. "The High Court has completely misdirected itself. It has not demonstrated how the Form 25 license violates the conditions of Form 20B. The entire prosecution rests on an incorrect reading of the law," the judgment stated.

On the second issue, the Court was unequivocal in its criticism of the Trial Court’s summoning order. "The order does not reflect any application of mind. It merely reproduces the allegations in the complaint and directs summons to be issued. Such a mechanical approach cannot be sustained in law," the Court remarked. Citing Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, the Court reiterated that "summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course." The Magistrate, it held, was required to examine the nature of allegations, scrutinize the evidence, and record reasons to justify the issuance of process. The failure to do so rendered the order legally unsound.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment, and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants. "Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, no offense is made out. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate any violation of law. The summoning order, being mechanical and non-speaking, is also liable to be set aside," the Court ruled.

It concluded with three key directions:

  • "The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 71 of 2018 before the First Additional Judicial Magistrate, Kadapa, are quashed."

  • "The High Court’s judgment dated January 12, 2024, dismissing the quashing petition, is set aside."

  • "The summoning order dated January 20, 2018, is declared unsustainable in law."

This ruling reinforces the principle that a mere procedural oversight, such as the absence of a wholesale license, does not automatically criminalize a transaction if both parties are otherwise lawfully licensed. It also serves as a reminder that courts must exercise due diligence before summoning an accused, ensuring that orders are reasoned and not issued as a matter of routine.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2025

 

Similar News