Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Dr. Johns Pvt. Ltd (represented by Advocate Mujeeb Andrabi); Respondent – State of Jammu & Kashmir (represented by Advocate Hakeem Aman Ali, Deputy Attorney General).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Criminal complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 alleging offences under Section 18(a)(i), Section 18(B) and Section 27(d).
  • Key Dates & Background:
  • 9 Jan 2014: Drugs Inspector Zone‑3, Srinagar inspected premises of M/S JAF (Accused No.1) and seized six samples of “CADCAL capsules (4x5x10 caps)”, batch SCDCL‑009, manufactured May 2013, expiry Apr 2015.
  • 31 Oct 2014: Government Analyst report No. L/DA/2014‑15/1095 declared the sample not of standard quality.
  • 01 Dec 2014: Accused No.2 (M/S Sane Enterprises) was asked for purchase records.
  • 06 Apr 2015: Accused No.3 (M/S King Fisher Pharma) was contacted; no response received.
  • 02 Jun 2015: Petitioner (Accused No.4) was notified of the analyst report and asked for information.
  • 08 Dec 2016: Petitioner’s representative visited the Drugs Inspector’s office but provided no written response.
  • 30 Jun 2017: Controlling authority sanctioned prosecution; complaint filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar on 16 Apr 2018; Magistrate issued process on 17 Apr 2018.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions:

1. The Magistrate took cognizance after the statutory limitation period had expired.

2. The expiry date of the drug (Apr 2015) pre‑dated the complaint, depriving the petitioner of the right under Section 25(3) to contest the analyst’s report.

  • Legal Provisions Discussed:
  • Section 27(d) – punishment up to 2 years imprisonment and minimum fine of Rs.20,000.
  • Section 538‑B of J&K Cr.P.C – three‑year limitation for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year.
  • Section 538‑G – allows cognizance after limitation only if delay is satisfactorily explained (not done here).
  • Section 25(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – right to adduce evidence in controversion of the analyst’s report within 28 days of receipt.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • Limitation period began on 11 Nov 2014 (date inspector received the analyst report). Three‑year period expired on 11 Nov 2017; the complaint was filed on 16 Apr 2018, thus beyond the limitation.
  • No justification for the delay was provided, and Section 538‑G could not be invoked.
  • The petitioner was informed of the report on 02 Jun 2015, but the drug had already expired (Apr 2015), making it impossible to exercise the Section 25(3) right.
  • Citing precedents (Municipal Corporation of vs Ghisa Ram, Nikson Pharmaceuticals v State of Rajasthan, Shiv Narain Bansal v State of Haryana, State of Haryana v Unique Farmaid, Medicamen Biotech Ltd v Rubina Bose), the Court emphasized that denial of the statutory right warrants quashing of proceedings.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is allowed.
  • The impugned complaint dated 16 Apr 2018 and all proceedings emanating therefrom, to the extent of Dr. Johns Pvt. Ltd, are quashed.
  • A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned trial Magistrate for information and compliance.

Topics: Drugs & Cosmetics Law, Limitation Period, Statutory Right to Contest Analyst Report