Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Order Date: 6 November 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: M/s. J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd (addressed at GIDC Ankaleshwar, Bharuch, Gujarat), its former Chairman & Managing Director the late Mr. Jyothindra B. Mody (deceased 21.07.2020), Mr. Kamlesh L. Udani (Executive Director, Technical & Production), and Mr. Sanjay Patel (authorized signatory).
- Respondent: Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, represented by Drugs Inspector, CDSCO, Sub‑Zone, Bangalore.
- The petition (Cr.Petition No.10273 of 2021) was filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking:
- Set‑aside of the order dated 01‑12‑2021 passed by the 55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which dismissed a petition under Section 397 CrPC.
- Set‑aside of the order dated 18‑02‑2017 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, which dismissed an application filed under Section 258 CrPC.
- Allow the application under Section 258 CrPC to stop the proceedings in C.C.No.89/2013 (the case concerning alleged violation of Sections 18(a)(i) and 17(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act).
- Background facts: The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging that the petitioners sold the tablet “Dilcardia 30”. On 08‑03‑2011 a Drug Inspector collected a sample from the premises of C.G.H.S., sent it to the Government Analyst, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata (Memorandum No.ADC/BSZ/KTK/7‑2/1795). The analyst’s report led to the private complaint and the trial court took cognizance of offences under Sections 17(b), 18(a)(i), 27(d) and 32(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
- The trial court’s order dismissing the Section 258 application was challenged before the Revisional Court, which on 01‑12‑2021 held the revision petition non‑maintainable, noting that the company’s perpetual succession required the next Managing Director to be brought on record after the death of Mr. Mody. The Revisional Court also reiterated that Section 258 cannot be invoked where the case is instituted on a private complaint under Section 200.
- Both the trial court and the Revisional Court’s decisions were subsequently challenged before this Court. Arguments presented by petitioners centered on:
- The prosecution was instituted under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which they argued is analogous to a police report and therefore not a private complaint.
- The applicability of Section 258 CrPC to a case initiated by a private complaint.
- Allegations that the analyst’s test method was erroneous and that a “clean chit” had been issued.
- Arguments by the respondent emphasized that the complaint was indeed a private complaint under Section 200, that Section 258 is inapplicable, and that the Supreme Court had already upheld the earlier orders and granted exemption to the deceased chairman for personal appearance.
Final Outcome
- The High Court concluded that the trial court correctly held Section 258 CrPC inapplicable, and the Revisional Court correctly found the revision petition non‑maintainable. No error was identified in either lower court’s orders. Consequently, the petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed.
Topics: Court Proceedings, Pharmaceutical Regulation, Criminal Procedure