Sanction U/S 33M Drugs & Cosmetics Act Required Only For Ayurvedic Drugs, Not Allopathic: Karnataka High Court

The petitioners had approached the court questioning the cognizance taken by the Magistrate court and summons issued to them on the ground that the offence alleged is under Section 27(d) of the Act which mandates punishment for a maximum term of imprisonment of two years, and the limitation would run from the date on which the Drugs Inspector receives the sample from the Laboratory, which was on 21-07-2012. The complaint being registered on 2-01-2018 is close to 5 years and 7 months after such receipt and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated on the ground of it being without jurisdiction, in the teeth of Section 468 CrPC.

Section 468 CrPC bars the concerned Court from taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation and the period of limitation is mandated to be one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

Findings:

At the outset, the bench noted that since the Lab report was handed over to the Drugs Inspector on 21-07-2012, the limitation according to Section 27(d) of the Act would expire on 20-07-2014. Thus, the complaint registered on 2-01-2018 was 3 years and 8 months after the period of limitation was over.

"Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 20-03-2018 by condoning the delay in registering the crime, notwithstanding the fact that such an order would run counter to Section 468 of the Cr.P.C."

Rejecting the ground taken by the government pleader justifying for condonation of delay, by relying on Section 33M of the Act, the bench said, "Section 33M of the Act comes under Chapter-IVA. Chapter IVA exclusively deals with the provisions relating to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs...The drugs in the case at hand are not the ones which are either Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani. They are allopathic drugs..."

It held that the Inspector was not required to await sanction of Drugs Controller for registering the complaint as the legal sample of the drug that was drawn was not of either Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani.

"If the Drugs Inspector has by taking recourse to a wrong provision of law sought sanction from the hands of the Drugs Controller to register prosecution, it cannot be said to be condonable as it was a question of jurisdiction. The statutory bar that kicks in terms of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. could not have been condoned by both the Courts as it gets at the root of the matter."

Competent Authority advised not to indulge in red tapism.

The bench while parting with the order advised the competent authority to register the crime in such cases in quick succession and not resort to red tapism and let the alleged guilty go scot-free on the plea of limitation.

Further it observed, "The Authority should also necessarily peruse and understand the statute for registration of crimes in such matters, as delay will defeat the very object of penal action under the statute and it is always said that "procrastination is the thief of time"."

Case Title: M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6919 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

Date of Order: 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Appearance: PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W ANAND MUTTALLI & GAURAV GANAPATHY C.G, Advocate for petitioners; K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP for respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order