The High Court of Karnataka has directed the competent authorities in the Drugs Control Department to register the crime in quick succession, and not resort to red-tapism and let the alleged offenders go scot-free by taking benefit of the provisions of the law, which limit the period for launching prosecution for violation of the law.
The authority should necessarily peruse and understand the statute for registration of crimes 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,” the court observed.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order in a criminal proceeding, initiated under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, against a Jammu-based pharmaceutical company, its managing director, and director (technical) in a case of allegedly supplying a drug of ‘not of standard quality.’
The petitioner company, M/s Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. had questioned the trial court’s March 2022 order of taking cognisance of offence on the complaint lodged by the Drugs Inspector.
Delay
Interestingly, the complaint was lodged only in 2018 even though sample of the drug in question was seized in January 2012 and the Government Drug Testing Laboratory had given test report in July 2012 indicating that drug sample drug was of ‘not of standard quality.’ The company had responded to the Drug Inspector’s notice in September 2012.
However, the Drugs Inspector had submitted details of investigation before the Drugs Controller only October 2013 seeking latter’s sanction to prosecute the company, the court noted while pointing out that the Drugs Controller granted sanction in December 2017 and registered criminal case in January 2018.
The High Court said that the trial court could not have proceeded against the company and its executives in view of the bar on taking cognisance of offence under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after lapse of period of limitation fixed for different categories of offences.
The offences alleged against the company and its executives attracted maximum imprisonment up to two years and the limitation for taking cognisance of such offence is three years, the court said while holding that registration of the case as well as taking cognisance were without jurisdiction as they are beyond the limitation period.
