M/S. Adroit Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Drugs Inspector Intelligence Branch Office of the Assistant Drugs Controller South Bazar, Kannur & State of Kerala
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. Ramakrishnan, J.
- Judgment Date
- 2015-12-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise their contentions before the Magistrate and to seek appropriate orders in view of Anandavel’s case. Interim stay is vacated and Crl.M.A. No.11650/2014 is dismissed. The Magistrate shall consider the absence of particulars and the contentions raised before it and may proceed accordingly; the petitioners are permitted to appear through counsel.
- Final Disposition
- Petition disposed of; liberty to raise contentions before the Magistrate; interim stay vacated; no quashing at this stage.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M/S. Adroit Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
- Dr. Abhimanyu H. Kukreja, Director, M/S. Adroit Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
- Sanjay C. Kukreja, Director, M/S. Adroit Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
- Bhupesh Kukreja, Director, M/S. Adroit Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd.
Respondents
- The Drugs Inspector Intelligence Branch Office of the Assistant Drugs Controller, South Bazar, Kannur-670002
- The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-682031
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri S. U. Nazar
- • Sri B. Vinod
- • Sri I. V. Pramod
- • Sri Mansoor B. H.
- • Smt. P. Usha Kumari
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri Reji Joseph, Public Prosecutor
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petition before the Kerala High Court challenges the proceedings in STC No.1908/2009 pending in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thalassery, under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against M/s Adroit Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. and four of its directors for alleged offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Sections 18(1)(a) read with 27(d)), as well as related provisions (Sections 34 and 23(2) and Rule 46 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945). The petition contends that the day-to-day responsibility for the company was not established as required by Section 34, and that the procurement of samples and the certification process violated statutory provisions (including Section 23(2)) and Rule 46; Annexure A3 allegedly lacks the full analysis protocol. The petition relies on Anandavel v. Food Inspector and a related dictum that where particulars of offence have not been read over, the Magistrate may terminate proceedings. The court directed a report from the Magistrate on whether particulars were read and, upon finding they were not read, indicated that the petition could be pursued before the Magistrate with a view to appropriate orders. Ultimately, the court disposed of the petition, not quashing; it granted liberty to the petitioners to raise contentions before the Magistrate and vacated an interim stay.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- State of Haryana v. Briju Lal Mittal and Others (1998) 5 SCC 343 – principle that absence of clear responsibility for day-to-day affairs can affect maintainability of the complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
- Anandavel v. Food Inspector (2010) 3 KLT 49 – principle that where particulars of offence have not been read over, the Magistrate may drop proceedings; remedy under CrPC 482.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that there is no maintainable complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as no responsible person for day-to-day affairs has been identified under Section 34, the procurement of samples and the certificate are allegedly in violation of the Act, and Annexure A3 does not contain the full protocol as required under Rule 46. They rely on the lack of particulars of offence being read to the accused and invoke CrPC 482 to quash the proceedings; they rely on Anandavel’s case for an exit route if essential particulars are not supplied.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue for continuation of proceedings, maintaining that the complaint is under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that the magistrate should proceed; they contend that technical deficiencies or the absence of some particulars do not automatically render the proceedings invalid; the prosecution should be afforded opportunity to present its case, with the court exercising appropriate discretion.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Haryana v. Briju Lal Mittal and Others | 1998 5 SCC 343 | Positive | Cited to support that absence of a clear responsible person for day-to-day affairs can render a complaint not maintainable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; the court relied on this dictum in deciding the maintainability of the complaint. |
| Anandavel v. Food Inspector | 2010 (3) KLT 49 | Positive | Cited regarding the remedy when particulars of offence have not been read; empowers the Magistrate to consider and possibly drop proceedings; the High Court used this to direct that contentions be raised before the Magistrate. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S. Adroit Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Drugs Inspector Intelligence Branch Office of the Assistant Drugs Controller South Bazar, Kannur & State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.