Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 18(a)(i), 17(b), 17(c), 27(d), 32 — Cognizance — Complaint by Drugs Inspector — Limitation under Sections 468–469 CrPC — Commencement of limitation where identity of offender emerges during inquiry — Held, limitation commences under Section 469(1)(c) CrPC from the date when identity of offender becomes known during investigation — Complaint filed within three years thereof is within limitation. (Paras 31–36) The allegation related to misbranding of vaccine labels. Though the initial private complaint was dated 05.01.2006, the identity of all accused persons crystallised only upon completion of inquiry and document verification on 18.04.2006. Applying Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, the limitation period commenced from the date when identity of offenders became known to the competent authority. The complaint dated 20.01.2009 was therefore within the three-year limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC for offences punishable up to three years. Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, where identity of the offender is ascertained during investigation, the period of limitation commences from such date under Section 469(1)(c), not from the date of initial information.

advocatemmmohan

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 18(a)(i), 17(b), 17(c), 27(d), 32 — Cognizance — Complaint by Drugs Inspector — Limitation under Sections 468–469 CrPC — Commencement of limitation where identity of offender emerges during inquiry — Held, limitation commences under Section 469(1)(c) CrPC from the date when identity of offender becomes known during investigation — Complaint filed within three years thereof is within limitation. (Paras 31–36)

The allegation related to misbranding of vaccine labels. Though the initial private complaint was dated 05.01.2006, the identity of all accused persons crystallised only upon completion of inquiry and document verification on 18.04.2006. Applying Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, the limitation period commenced from the date when identity of offenders became known to the competent authority. The complaint dated 20.01.2009 was therefore within the three-year limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC for offences punishable up to three years.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, where identity of the offender is ascertained during investigation, the period of limitation commences from such date under Section 469(1)(c), not from the date of initial information.

---

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 202(1) — Mandatory inquiry where accused resides beyond territorial jurisdiction — Complaint by public servant — Harmonious construction with Section 200 proviso — Held, where complaint is filed by a public servant in discharge of official duties, the legislative scheme places such complainant on a distinct footing; non-holding of separate Section 202 inquiry does not ipso facto vitiate summoning order. (Paras 37–41)

The High Court had quashed the complaint on the ground that the Magistrate failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC since the accused resided beyond jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that Section 202 must be construed harmoniously with the proviso to Section 200 CrPC, which exempts examination of a public servant complainant. Relying on precedent, the Court held that complaints by public servants stand on a different pedestal and strict insistence on Section 202 inquiry in such cases is unwarranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions initiated by authorised public servants in discharge of official duties, failure to conduct a separate Section 202 CrPC inquiry does not automatically invalidate cognizance and summoning.

---

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 34 — Vicarious liability of Directors — Whether Director was ‘in charge of’ and ‘responsible to the company’ — Question of fact — Premature quashing impermissible. (Paras 56–59)

In the connected appeal relating to prosecution for ‘not of standard quality’ syringes, the High Court had quashed proceedings against Directors for insufficient averments under Section 34 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that whether Directors were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business is a matter for trial based on evidence. At the threshold, proceedings ought not to be quashed on such factual issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Determination of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act involves factual inquiry and cannot ordinarily be decided at the stage of quashing.

---

Limitation — Section 473 CrPC — Power to extend limitation — Observations of High Court regarding computation — Clarified. (Paras 32–36)

The Court clarified that the High Court erred in computing limitation from an earlier date under Section 469(1)(b) CrPC; rather, Section 469(1)(c) applied in the facts. However, subsequent developments rendered that issue academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Correct identification of the applicable limb of Section 469(1) CrPC is essential for computing limitation; where identity of offender is initially unknown, clause (c) governs.

---

Result — First Appeal (Panacea Biotec matter): Impugned High Court order quashing complaint set aside; summoning order restored; substitution permitted in view of death of Managing Director; fresh summons to issue. (Paras 43–44)**

Connected Appeal (Diary No. 18999 of 2023): Dismissed, for reasons recorded in principal appeal. (Paras 45–48)**

Connected Appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 8867 of 2023): Impugned High Court judgment quashing proceedings on Section 202 and Section 34 grounds set aside; complaint restored; fresh summons to issue. (Paras 57–59)**

Clarification: Observations confined to issues decided; merits left open for trial; no order as to costs. (Para 60)**