When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act

In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against M/s. JM Laboratories and Others under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, holding that the prosecution was barred by limitation and that the summoning order issued by the Trial Court lacked application of judicial mind.

The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that a Magistrate "must apply his mind to the facts and law before issuing process." The Court observed, "Summoning an accused is a serious matter. It cannot be done mechanically, nor can it be sustained if issued beyond the prescribed limitation period."

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector, Kurnool, under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, against M/s. JM Laboratories (Appellant No. 1), its Managing Partner (Appellant No. 2), and three other silent partners (Appellant Nos. 3, 4, and 5).

The complaint alleged that on September 7, 2018, the Drugs Inspector collected a sample of MOXIGOLD-CV 625 (Amoxycillin & Potassium Clavunate Tablets IP), Batch No. BT170059F, manufactured by the appellants. The sample was sent to the Government Analyst, Drugs Control Laboratory, Vijayawada, who, in a report dated December 15, 2018, declared the drug to be “Not of Standard Quality” due to its failure in the dissolution test for Amoxycillin and Clavulanic Acid.

Based on this report, the prosecution alleged that the appellants had violated Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and were liable for punishment under Section 27(d) of the Act.

Despite the alleged offense occurring in December 2018, the complaint was filed in May 2023, well beyond the prescribed three-year limitation period under Section 468(2) CrPC. The Trial Court, on July 19, 2023, took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the appellants, directing them to appear on August 10, 2023.

The appellants approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the summoning order lacked judicial reasoning. The High Court, however, dismissed their plea on October 4, 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found that the complaint was filed well beyond the prescribed limitation period of three years and was thus legally untenable.

"When law prescribes a limitation, courts cannot ignore it. The Analytical Report was issued on December 15, 2018, yet the complaint was filed only in May 2023, almost four and a half years later. Such a prosecution is clearly time-barred under Section 468(2) CrPC and cannot be sustained," the Court observed.

The Court reiterated that limitation provisions serve as an essential safeguard against belated prosecutions and harassment of accused persons. The prosecution's failure to act within the statutory period was fatal to the case.

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the mechanical manner in which the Trial Court had issued summons without recording any reasoning. It observed that the summoning order merely reproduced the allegations from the complaint, without any independent assessment by the Magistrate.

Quoting from Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Court reiterated:

"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 must apply his mind to the facts and law before issuing process. A non-speaking order, devoid of reasoning, is unsustainable in law."

The Supreme Court further relied on its recent ruling in Lalankumar Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383), where it was held:

"The order of issuance of process is not an empty formality. The Magistrate must examine whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused. A non-reasoned order, even if brief, must disclose application of mind."

Since the Trial Court had failed to apply its mind, the Supreme Court declared the summoning order legally unsound and set it aside.

High Court's Dismissal of Quashing Petition was Legally Unsustainable

The Supreme Court found the High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings legally flawed. The High Court had dismissed the quashing petition without addressing the issue of limitation and had upheld the summoning order despite its apparent lack of reasoning.

"The High Court has completely misdirected itself. It has failed to consider the bar of limitation under Section 468(2) CrPC and has overlooked the established principle that summoning an accused requires due judicial application of mind," the Court ruled.

Supreme Court’s Decision and Final Order
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed both the High Court’s judgment and the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants.

The Court concluded:

"(i) The present appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated October 4, 2023, passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 5766 of 2023 is set aside.
(iii) The summoning order dated July 19, 2023, passed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 1051 of 2023 and all proceedings arising therefrom are quashed."

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Prosecution cannot proceed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 468(2) CrPC.
A summoning order must reflect application of judicial mind—mechanical orders are legally unsustainable.
Courts must ensure that accused persons are not subjected to belated and legally flawed prosecutions.
High Courts must carefully examine the bar of limitation while deciding quashing petitions.
This ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that criminal proceedings must adhere to statutory limitations and procedural safeguards, and that courts must not act mechanically in summoning accused persons.

Date of Decision: January 30, 2025