Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the lower court erred in granting bail to the accused-respondent. The Court found that the lower court was swayed by the fact that purchases were made through bills and payments were made into the seller's account, but failed to consider the provisions of Section 19 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. This section makes a person dealing with spurious drugs equally liable as the manufacturer. The Court noted that the accused-respondent did not have complete purchase bills for the entire quantity of drugs seized and had not purchased them from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer. The seized drugs were found to be spurious, with strips having identical codes when they should have different ones. Given that the main accused (manufacturer) is still at large and there are specific allegations in the charge-sheet against the respondent for being part of a drug racket, the Court deemed it proper to cancel the bail. The bail cancellation application was allowed, and the trial court was directed to take the accused-respondent into custody forthwith. The issue of locus standi was implicitly addressed by the Court considering the application on merits.

Facts

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, through its authorized representative, filed a bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. The application challenged the bail granted to respondent Vinay Mangal by a lower court. The FIR registered was for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B of the IPC, read with various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The petitioner contended that the lower court erred by misinterpreting Section 19(3) of the Act of 1940 and ignoring crucial facts, such as the accused not purchasing drugs from a duly licensed entity and the lack of complete purchase bills for a large quantity of seized drugs. The petitioner argued that the accused was part of a spurious drug racket.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court below erred in granting bail to the accused-respondent by misinterpreting Section 19(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and ignoring relevant material facts concerning the accused's involvement in dealing with spurious drugs? Petitioner's Arguments: - The lower court wrongly interpreted Section 19(3) of the Act of 1940, which provides defenses for persons not being manufacturers. The accused failed to prove he acquired the drugs from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer, and that he did not know and could not have ascertained the contravention. - M/s. Darsh Pharma purchased drugs from M/s. Ganpati Enterprises, which was not a licensed dealer for the specific product. - The lower court considered irrelevant facts like E-way bills and GST payments, ignoring the lack of complete purchase bills and the fact that seized strips had identical codes when they should have different ones. - Reliance was placed on Puran Versus Rambilas & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338 and Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Versus State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179 regarding interference with bail orders. Respondent's Arguments: - The applicant has no locus standi to file the bail cancellation application as they are neither the complainant nor the one who lodged the FIR. - Reliance was placed on Bhagirathsinh Judeja Versus State of Gujarat AIR 1984 SC 372 and Prabhakar Tewari Versus State of U.P. & Anr. JT 2020(2) 1 SC 72, stating that bail should generally be granted and that grave offences or pending cases alone are not grounds for refusal. - Reliance was also placed on The State of Andhra Pradesh Versus Veterinary Division & Ors. JT 2002 (8) SC 534 and Dinesh M.N. Versus State of Gujarat AIR 2008 SC 2318, arguing that irrelevant materials considered by the court can be a ground for cancellation.