M/S Life Vision Healthcare And Others vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Life Vision Healthcare and its partner, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a complaint filed under Sections 18(a)(i) and 18-B, punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, along with a summoning order. The complaint stemmed from a sample of "Dew Drop Hand Rub" drawn on 23.06.2020, which was declared "not of standard quality" due to insufficient Isopropyl Alcohol content. The petitioners argued the product was a cosmetic, not a drug, and that mandatory procedural requirements under the Act, including sample supply for re-analysis and timely issuance of the analyst's report, were not followed. They also contended the prosecution was time-barred and lacked specific averments regarding their responsibility. The State argued the product's classification as drug or cosmetic required factual adjudication, that proper procedures were followed, and that documents obtained pertained to drug manufacturing licences, not cosmetics.

Held

The Court held that the primary contention regarding whether the product "Dew Drop Hand Rub" is a cosmetic or a drug involves disputed questions of fact and technical material that cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The sampling, analyst report, exchange of notices, collection of documents, and sanction for prosecution formed the basis of the complaint. Whether the product was manufactured and marketed as a cosmetic or fell within the category of a drug, by virtue of its composition and intended use, requires evidence and technical adjudication before the trial court. The Court found no merit in the submission regarding limitation, noting that Section 27(d) of the Act, 1940, prescribes punishment up to two years, making the applicable limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. extend up to three years. The complaint, filed on 10.06.2022, could not be held ex facie barred by limitation at this stage. The argument that Section 27(d) was invoked to overcome limitation was also rejected as a matter to be tested on evidence during trial. Other arguments also required appreciation of facts and evidence, which is not permissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only when continuation of proceedings amounts to a patent abuse of process or the allegations do not disclose any offence. Finding no ground to interfere in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the product "Dew Drop Hand Rub" is a cosmetic or a drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and consequently, whether the provisions of the Act were wrongly invoked by the respondent (Section 3(aaa) and Section 3(b) of the Act, 1940)? - Petitioners argued it is a cosmetic, holding a valid cosmetics manufacturing licence, and GST invoices reflected cosmetic HSN classification. They contended the respondent mechanically invoked drug provisions without material evidence. - Respondent argued that the classification requires factual and technical adjudication, and collected documents indicated drug manufacturing licences. 2. Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 23 and 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, regarding sample analysis and re-testing rights, were complied with by the respondent? - Petitioners argued that failure to supply a sample portion for re-analysis and the expiry of the product's shelf life before the complaint was filed prejudiced their right to retesting under Section 25(4). - Respondent stated that a show-cause notice was issued, and the petitioners acknowledged receipt and disclosed suspension of their drug manufacturing licences. 3. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and if Section 27(d) of the Act, 1940, was intentionally invoked to overcome the limitation bar? - Petitioners argued that the offence was punishable with imprisonment up to one year, making Section 468 Cr.P.C. applicable, and that invoking Section 27(d) was a tactic to bypass limitation. - Respondent argued that Section 27(d) prescribes punishment up to two years, extending the limitation period to three years, and that the invocation of Section 27(d) is a matter for trial evidence. 4. Whether there are sufficient averments in the complaint to establish vicarious liability of the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act, 1940? - Petitioners argued that mere designation as partner/director is insufficient without specific averments of being in charge of day-to-day affairs.