Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Miteshbhai J. Patel vs The Drug Inspector on 29 July, 2025
Author: Vikram Nath
Bench: Vikram Nath
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)………………………OF 2025
(@SLP(CRL.) NO(S). 3662-3663/2024)
MITESHBHAI J. PATEL
AND ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE DRUG INSPECTOR AND ANR. …RESPONDENTS
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from the common judgment and
final order dated 05.12.2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Cr. Rev. Petition Nos. 276 and
278 of 2018 wherein the Court has affirmed the view of the
Trial Court by which the complaints were said to be within
the period of limitation.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:
3.1. The respondent Drug Inspector drew samples of two
batches of a drug named Rabeprazole Tablets from a
medical shop named City Medicals in Kozhikode,
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Kerala on 29.01.2010. The said drug is manufactured
Date: 2025.08.20
10:23:07 IST
Reason:
by the company named Indica Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.
of which the appellants are the directors.
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 1
3.2. One sealed portion of the drug was sent to a
Government Testing Laboratory for the purpose of
testing. Reports were obtained on 30.03.2010 and
09.04.2010 respectively disclosing that the drug was
not of the standard quality as it does not comply with
the test ‘Related Substances and Assay’.
3.3. Thereafter, the respondent-Drug Inspector filed two
complaints, bearing no. CC 1/2014 and CC 2/2024
under section 32 of of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
19401 against the appellants, alleging, inter alia,
commission of an offence for the violation of section
18(a)(i) of the Act punishable under section 27(d) of the
Act for selling sub-standard quality drug.
3.4. Charges were framed against the appellants under
section 18(a)(i) r/w section 27(d) of the Act.
3.5. The appellants preferred two Criminal Miscellaneous
Petitions (Cr.MP), bearing No. 3292/2017 in CC No.
1/2014 and No. 3292/2017 in CC No. 2/2014, praying
that further proceedings are not maintainable on the
ground that cognizance was taken after the expiry of
the limitation period as prescribed under Section
468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 as
the samples were collected on 20.01.2010 and
1 The 1940 Act
2 CrPC
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 2
29.01.2010 and subsequently analysis report was
obtained on 30.03.2010 and 09.04.2010. However, the
complaint was filed by the respondent on 24.06.2013
and 03.07.2013 after a period of three years.
3.6. The Trial Court vide order dated 01.02.2018 dismissed
both the applications and returned the finding that
there was no delay since the time taken to send out
the notice of prosecution as well as in the collection of
details of the appellants had to be excluded and thus,
both the complaints were well within the period of
limitation.
3.7. Aggrieved, the appellants assailed the aforesaid order
of the Trial Court in two separate criminal revision
petitions, bearing no. 276 of 2018 and no. 282 of 2018
before the High Court.
4. The High Court vide order dated 05.12.2023 upheld the
view of the Trial Court to be correct by which it was
observed that there was no delay since the period for giving
notice of prosecution and obtaining the details of the
accused had to be excluded.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the material placed on record.
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 3
6. The only question that needs determination in the present
case is whether the complaints filed by the respondents are
barred by limitation or not as prescribed under the CrPC.
7. Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes
the period of limitation and states that for any offence,
which is punishable with a term exceeding one year but not
exceeding three years, the period of limitation shall be three
years. The punishment prescribed under Section 27 of the
1940 Act for the offence of manufacturing or distributing
sub-standard drugs is three years. Therefore, any complaint
disclosing such an offence ought to have been made within
a period of three years. Section 469(a) of CrPC provides that
the period of limitation in relation to an offence commences
on the date of the offence.
8. In the present case, it is not disputed that the complaints
were filed much later than three years from the date of the
reports submitted by the Drug Analyst. As is the nature of
this case, an offence would be made out only after the
report of the Drug Analyst is received. As the Drug Analyst
report in the present case was received on 30.03.2010 and
09.04.2010, therefore, the limitation period by virtue of
Section 469(a) of CrPC shall commence from that respective
date when the said reports when received. The complaint is
filed by the Respondents only on 24.06.2013 and
03.07.2013, which is beyond the statutory time limit.
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 4
9. Thus, the reasoning given by the Trial Court and the High
Court that certain delays undertaken for the purposes of
ascertaining the constitutional particulars of the appellant’s
company have to be condoned, is unsustainable in the eyes
of law. As per the application of section 468 CrPC, the
period of limitation which began to run on the date when
the report was received, the same being the date of offence,
that is, 30.03.2010 and 09.04.2010, would come to an end
in March, 2013 and April 2013 respectively. The evidence
on record clearly states that the requisites such as the
details of the manufacturing company required for initiating
proceedings under the 1940 Act are present in the
Government Analyst Report in Form-13 which was received
by the respondent on the above-mentioned dates. The same
was even forwarded to the manufacturing company on
06.04.2010 and 24.11.2010. Therefore, it cannot be denied
that the complainants were well aware about the particulars
of the company from the very beginning. The explanation
given by the High Court and the Trial Court, which upholds
the reasoning that it took the complainant more than three
years to collect the particulars is completely untenable. The
spirit of the law on limitation lies in the maxim vigilantibus
non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Law helps the vigilant,
not the indolent.
10. In addition to this, the complainant has not raised any
plea requesting either condonation of delay or exclusion of
time before the Court explaining the delay in filing the
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 5
complaint. Both the Courts below have exceeded their power
in awarding a benefit that was never claimed by the
respondents.
11. The period of limitation of three years prescribed under
CrPC was adequately long enough for the complainant to
initiate proceedings against the appellants. The
requirements to be fulfilled under the 1940 Act with respect
to details of the manufacturing company could have been
easily complied with in the statutory time frame.
12. In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm view
that the impugned proceedings were barred by limitation
and thus deserve to be quashed.
13. Although other grounds such as not conducting a
mandatory enquiry as per Section 202 CrPC were raised, we
are not inclined to deal with them since the ground of
limitation is good enough to allow the appeal.
14. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court is set aside and the proceedings
arising from the complaint are quashed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall be disposed of.
……………………………….J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 6
……………………………….J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI
JULY 29, 2025
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 7
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3662-
3663/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
05-12-2023 in CRLRP No. 276/2018 and in CRLRP No. 282/2018
passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam]
MITESHBHAI J. PATEL & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE DRUG INSPECTOR & ANR. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
Date : 29-07-2025 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, AOR
Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, Adv.
Mr. Anand Thumbayil, Adv.
Mr. Sriram P, Adv.
Ms. Namita Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Vishnupriya P Govind, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.V. Surendranath, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR
Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv.
Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv.
Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Adv.
Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals stand allowed in terms of the
signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(SONIA BHASIN) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]
Crl. Ap. No…./2025@ SLP(Crl.) No.3662-3663/2024 8