Failure to Retest Drug Samples and Absence of Company as Accused Leads to Quashing of Charges Against Sudhir Kumar
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Sudhir Kumar, the Managing Director of Jacksons Laboratories Private Ltd., who was facing charges under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The proceedings were initiated following a complaint by the Drug Inspector, Pulwama, concerning a drug sample that reportedly did not meet standard quality. The case, titled "State through Drug Inspector, Pulwama v. J.M. Traders and Pharmaceutical Distributors and Others," highlighted key procedural lapses, leading to the High Court's intervention.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Sanjeev Kumar, underscored the procedural failure on the part of the Drug Inspector. The Inspector did not request the retesting or re-analysis of the drug sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory, despite the manufacturer’s notification to controvert the Government Analyst’s report. The court emphasized that though it is not obligatory for the complainant to request re-analysis solely upon notification by the accused, the failure to act promptly and the expiry of the drug sample's shelf life deprived the accused of statutory rights, thereby vitiating the criminal proceedings.
The court further noted that the complaint was not maintainable solely against the Managing Director without arraigning the company itself as an accused. Under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the liability of directors is vicarious and requires the company to be arraigned as an accused for the directors to be held liable.
The High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings was based on the denial of the statutory right to the accused to seek re-analysis of the drug sample. The shelf life of the drug expired in March 2016, and the accused could not exercise his right to request a re-test when he appeared before the court in June 2016, as the prosecution had not been launched promptly.
Legal experts view this judgment as a reminder of the critical importance of procedural compliance in criminal prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, ensuring that statutory rights of the accused are protected, and procedural lapses do not undermine the legal processes.
Bottom Line:
Failure to test or analyse a drug sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory upon the accused's notification to controvert the Government Analyst's report and lack of timely prosecution may vitiate criminal proceedings.
Statutory provision(s):
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sections 23, 25(4), 34; Section 561A CrPC
Sudhir Kumar v. Peerzada Tasaduq Hussain, (Jammu And Kashmir) : Law Finder Doc id # 2864459
