Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Order Date: 10 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Anita Kukreja & Anr., represented by Advocate Varut Kumar Gupta.
- Respondent: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, represented by Deputy Advocate General Hakeem Aman Ali.
- Complaint filed by Drugs Control Officer (Zone‑1, Srinagar) alleging offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 concerning Wetolol‑25 XR tablets (Batch No. AMT18010, manufacturing date May 2018, expiry April 2020) manufactured and marketed by Astraazin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
- Sample lifted from M/S B.I. Traders Pharmaceutical Distributors, Fateh Kadal, Srinagar; analysis by Government Analyst dated 15‑02‑2019 declared non‑standard quality.
- Distribution chain traced: B.I. Traders purchased from M/S Aazin Pharmaceutical Distributors; Aazin obtained the product from Astraazin; Astraazin had procured it from M/S Mascot Health Series Pvt. Ltd., Haridwar, which manufactured the product under a loan licence of Astraazin.
- Petitioners alleged to be Managing Directors of M/S Mascot Health Series Pvt. Ltd., thereby purportedly liable under the Act; the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, took cognizance and issued process on 20‑12‑2020.
Legal Issue
- Petitioners argued that the trial magistrate failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code before issuing process, as they reside beyond the magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction.
- They also contended that Mascot Health Series is not the actual manufacturer but only a licencee, and vicarious liability cannot be attached without specific allegations.
Court Reasoning
- Section 202 CrPC obliges a magistrate to hold an inquiry when the accused resides outside his territorial jurisdiction before deciding on issuance of process.
- The record shows no such inquiry was held; consequently, the magistrate’s order is legally untenable.
- The court limited its analysis to this procedural defect and did not delve into the other substantive contentions.
Final Outcome
- The High Court quashed the order dated 20‑12‑2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar.
- The matter was remanded to the trial magistrate with directions to conduct a Section 202 inquiry and to consider the petitioners’ contentions before deciding on any further process.
Topics: Drug Regulation, Procedural Law