Can't Convict Drug Manufacturer Twice For Same Violation Even If Substandard Drug Samples Lifted From Different Places: J&K High Court

In allowing the petition of the Drug Manufacturing Company Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed,

“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 or in other words, that will be allowing the petitioner to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”

The saga began with two separate complaints filed against Eaton Laboratories under the Drugs and Cosmetics 1940 Act. The first complaint, filed against both the manufacturer and a pharmacy, pertained to a batch of Emlo-A (Mfg. Jan 2013, Exp. Dec 2015) found to be subpar. Eaton Laboratories confessed and was convicted, receiving a fine but no imprisonment.

However, the company faced another complaint for the same batch of Emlo-A, this time based on a sample lifted directly from their premises on a different date (March 30th, 2013). Assailing the same the petitioner company argued that this constituted double jeopardy, being tried twice for the same offence.

Their argument hinged on the Act's Section 18(a)(i), which prohibits manufacturing or selling substandard drugs, and Section 27(d), which prescribes penalties for such violations. They contended that both complaints revolved around the same offense – "manufacturing for sale" of the identical substandard drug batch.

Justice Nargal, in a meticulous analysis of the case, noted that the only distinguishing feature in both complaints was the date on which the drug samples were lifted. The court emphasized that the petitioner had already been convicted for the manufacture of the same drug in the first complaint. The conviction was based on a confession statement, and a fine of Rs. 40,000 had been imposed on the petitioner.

Referring to Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, the court held that the petitioner could not be tried for the same offence more than once. Underscoring the protection against double jeopardy, the bench stated that prosecuting and punishing the petitioner again for the same offence would be a violation of this fundamental principle.

Drawing upon legal precedents, including the recent case of T.P. Gopalakrishnan vs. State of Kerala 2022, the court emphasized that the concept of double jeopardy is essential to protect an individual's right to live with dignity.

Observing that the petitioner had already been convicted for the offence of "manufacturing for sale" with regard to the same batch under the first complaint, Justice Nargal concluded that trying them again for the same act under the second complaint would indeed constitute double jeopardy.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the second complaint, protecting Eaton Laboratories from further prosecution for the same offence.

Case Title: Kumar Wanchoo Vs Drug Inspector Manufacturing, Kashmir Division,

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 324

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment