State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr.

 Section 202 CrPC inquiry not mandatory where complaint is filed by authorised Drugs Inspector; limitation runs from date identity of accused becomes known under s. 469(1)(c) CrPC.

Background

A complaint alleged misbranding of a vaccine under s. 18(a)(i) read with s. 17(b), 17(c) and s. 27(d) Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DCA) and Rule 96 Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The CJM issued summons. The High Court quashed proceedings for non-compliance with s. 202(1) CrPC (accused residing beyond jurisdiction), though it upheld condonation of delay.

Issues Framed

  1. Whether cognizance was barred by limitation under ss. 468–469 CrPC, and whether extension under s. 473 CrPC was necessary.
  2. Whether inquiry under s. 202(1) CrPC was mandatory despite the complaint being filed by a public servant.
  3. (Connected appeal) Whether averments satisfied s. 34 DCA (vicarious liability of Directors).

Court’s Reasoning

1. Limitation (ss. 468–469 CrPC)

  • Offence punishable under s. 27(d) DCA attracts a three-year limitation under s. 468(2)(c) CrPC.
  • The Court held limitation commenced under s. 469(1)(c) CrPC—“the first day on which the identity of the offender is known” (¶33).
  • Identity of all accused crystallised on 18.04.2006 after investigation. Complaint filed on 20.01.2009 was within three years (¶36).
  • High Court erred in computing limitation from the date of initial information (¶36).

Held: Cognizance not barred; limitation satisfied.

2. Section 202(1) CrPC — Public Servant Complaint

  • Proviso to s. 200 CrPC exempts examination of complainant where complaint is by a public servant in discharge of official duty.
  • Relying on Cheminova India Ltd., the Court held legislature places public servants on a different footing.
  • Section 202 must be harmoniously construed with s. 200 CrPC.
  • Hence, mandatory postponement inquiry under s. 202(1) CrPC does not apply rigidly where complaint is by authorised Inspector under s. 32 DCA.

Held: High Court erred in quashing on ground of non-compliance with s. 202 CrPC.

3. Section 34 DCA — Directors’ Liability

  • Whether Directors were “in charge of” and “responsible to the company” is a matter of evidence.
  • High Court’s view that pleadings were insufficient was premature.

Decision / Disposition

  • Appeal by State allowed; High Court’s quashing order set aside.
  • Accused’s appeal on limitation dismissed.
  • Appeal concerning Directors allowed; proceedings restored.

Ratio

For offences under s. 27(d) DCA, limitation under s. 468(2)(c) CrPC commences under s. 469(1)(c) CrPC from the date the identity of the offender becomes known; further, where a complaint is instituted by an authorised public servant under s. 32 DCA, strict compliance with s. 202(1) CrPC inquiry is not mandatory.

Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 200
Decided on: 26 February 2026
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr. (with connected appeals)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.; S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Ors.

  Compassionate appointment, once accepted, cannot be re-opened to claim a higher post; belated claims defeat the very object of such appointment. Neutral Citation & Date:  2025 INSC 1423 · Decided on 12 December 2025 Case Title:   The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Ors.  (connected appeals) Court:  Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Bench:  Rajesh Bindal, J.; Manmohan, J.   Background The respondents were dependants of deceased employees who had served as sweepers. Upon their fathers’ deaths, they applied for and were granted compassionate appointment as sweepers, which they accepted and joined. Several years later (after gaps of about three and nine years respectively), they filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court seeking appointment to the higher post of Junior Assistant, asserting that they were qualified at the time of initial appointment. The Single Judge allowed the claim, which was affi...
Read more

M/s Aarsuday Projects & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Jogen Chowdhury & Ors.

  Background A PIL before the Calcutta High Court challenged a residential construction near  Visva-Bharati  University, alleging that it stood on ecologically sensitive “ khoai ” land and lacked competent permissions. The High Court ordered demolition, compensation, and action against officials. The developer, planning authority (SSDA), and flat purchasers appealed.   Issues Framed 1.  Whether the High Court was justified in concluding that the subject plot was “ khoai ” land warranting demolition. 2.  Whether the High Court correctly exercised PIL jurisdiction to order demolition based on the material on record. 3.  Whether the regulatory approvals and land-use permissions rendered the construction illegal.   Court’s Reasoning •  Nature of the land:  The Court held that there was  no clear, specific, or contemporaneous scientific evidence establishing that the  subject plot itself  was “ khoai ” land. Reports relied upon...
Read more

State of Maharashtra v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors.

  State can withdraw tax exemption in public interest, but must provide reasonable transition period to avoid undue hardship. Background Challenge to withdrawal/modification of electricity duty exemption granted to captive power producers. The State granted exemption under s. 5A Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 to encourage captive generation. Notifications (2000–2001) curtailed/withdrew exemption. The High Court struck them down as arbitrary; the State appealed. Issues Framed Whether the State is legally empowered to withdraw or modify exemption granted under s. 5A . Whether such withdrawal violates doctrines of promissory estoppel , legitimate expectation , or Art. 14 Const. of India . Court’s Reasoning 1. Nature of exemption under s. 5A Rule: Exemption is a concession/privilege , not a vested right. Application: Beneficiaries have only a defeasible right to enjoy exemption during its currency. Holding: State retains power to withdraw/modify exemp...
Read more

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. ERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd. & Ors.

  IBC permits simultaneous CIRP against principal debtor and corporate guarantor; doctrine of election and recovery-based objections rejected, subject to safeguards against double recovery. Background A batch of appeals arose from conflicting NCLT/NCLAT decisions on whether a financial creditor, having initiated or participated in CIRP against a principal borrower (or guarantor), could maintain a parallel application under s. 7 IBC against the corporate guarantor (or debtor) for the same debt. Several tribunals relied on Vishnu Kumar Agarwal v. Piramal Enterprises Ltd. to bar a second proceeding once one was admitted. Issues Framed Whether simultaneous or successive CIRP proceedings under ss. 7 and 60(2) IBC against a principal borrower and its corporate guarantor are maintainable for the same debt. Whether the creditor must elect between remedies (doctrine of election). Whether such parallel proceedings convert the IBC into a r...
Read more

Union of India & Ors. v. Heavy Vehicles Factory Employees’ Union & Anr.

Compensatory allowances forming part of “ordinary rate of wages” must be included while computing overtime wages under s. 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948; executive memoranda cannot curtail statutory entitlements.   Background Employees of  defence  production factories claimed that compensatory allowances—House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), Clothing and Washing Allowance (CWA), and Small Family Allowance (SFA)—must be included while computing overtime wages. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim, but the Madras High Court allowed it. The Union of India appealed.    Issues Framed 1.  Whether compensatory allowances fall within “ordinary rate of wages” for calculating overtime wages under s. 59(2) of the Factories Act, 1948.     Court’s Reasoning 1. Statutory interpretation of s. 59(2) Factories Act, 1948 •  Legal Rule:  Section 59(2) defines “ordinary rate of wages” as  basic wages plus such allow...
Read more

Gujarat Public Service Commission v. Gnaneshwary Dushyantkumar Shah & Ors.

  Case Details Citation:  2026 INSC 70 Decided on:  19 January 2026 Case Title:   Gujarat Public Service Commission v.  Gnaneshwary  Dushyantkumar  Shah &  Ors . Court:  Supreme Court of India Bench:   Pamidighantam  Sri  Narasimha , J.;  Alok   Aradhe , J.   Background The Gujarat Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 23.09.2015 for direct recruitment to various Professor posts, including Professor (Plastic Engineering), under the Government Engineering Colleges Recruitment Rules, 2012. Selection was prescribed solely through interview. The respondent-candidate participated, secured 28/100 marks against the prescribed minimum of 45, and was not selected. After being unsuccessful, she challenged the process by invoking the AICTE (Career Advancement Scheme) Regulations, 2012.   Issues Framed Whether the  AICTE All India Council for Technical Education   (Career Advancement Sche...
Read more

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Bhawana Mishra(with Anshu Gautam & Ors.; Ankita Maurya & Ors.

  Mere admission to  Ayurvedic  Nursing Training does not confer a right to appointment; legitimate expectation fails where policy  and selection regime have materially changed Citation & Date:  2026 INSC 38; decided on  8 January 2026 Case Details Case Title:   State of Uttar Pradesh &  Ors . v.  Bhawana  Mishra (with  Anshu   Gautam  &  Ors . ;  Ankita   Maurya  &  Ors . ) Court:  Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Bench:  Rajesh  Bindal , J.; Manmohan, J.   Background  Admissions were made to the  Ayurvedic  Nursing Training Course (2013–14) conducted by a government institution. Historically, candidates completing the course were appointed as  Ayurvedic  Staff Nurses. Subsequently, private institutions were permitted to conduct the course, significantly increasing the number of trained candidates. After completion of...
Read more

Reginamary Chellamani v. State rep. by Superintendent of Customs

  Prolonged incarceration of an  undertrial  under the NDPS Act, coupled with parity with a co-accused already enlarged on bail, justifies grant of regular bail notwithstanding seizure of commercial quantity; trial courts must scrupulously secure the accused’s right to legal representation.   Background The appellant was arrested in connection with an NDPS prosecution arising out of seizure of contraband allegedly exceeding commercial quantity. She was charged under  s. 8(c) read with ss. 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 & 29 NDPS Act , and  s. 135 Customs Act . Her application for regular bail was rejected by the Madras High Court. By the time the appeal was considered, the appellant had remained in custody for over  four years . A co-accused travelling on the same flight had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.   Issues Framed 1.  Whether prolonged pre-trial incarceration can justify grant of regular bail in NDPS cases involving c...
Read more

Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors.

  Background Disputes arising from a family settlement were referred to arbitration. Upon delay in making the award, an application for extension under  s. 29A Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was moved before the Commercial Court. Meanwhile, owing to resignation of the presiding arbitrator, a fresh appointment was made by the High Court under  s. 11 . The High Court thereafter held that only it had jurisdiction to extend time under  s. 29A , setting aside the Commercial Court’s order.   Issues Framed 1.  Whether an application under  s. 29 A( 4)  lies before the High Court merely because the arbitral tribunal was appointed under  s. 11 . 2.  Whether “Court” in  s. 29A  bears the meaning assigned in  s. 2(1)(e)  or requires contextual departure.   Court’s Reasoning •  Textual primacy of s. 2(1)(e):  The Court reaffirmed that the definition of “Court” in  s. 2(1)(e)  is exhaustive and gov...
Read more

Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Babaldas Amtharam Patel (D) through LRs & Ors.

  Surety is discharged only to the extent of unauthorized variance; liability subsists for the original guaranteed amount under s. 133 ICA, not s. 139 ICA. Background Respondent No. 6 obtained a cash-credit facility of ₹4,00,000 from the appellant Bank. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stood as sureties for this amount. Subsequently, the borrower withdrew amounts far exceeding the sanctioned limit. The Board of Nominees decreed recovery only against the principal debtor. The Co-operative Tribunal fastened liability of ₹4,00,000 with interest on the sureties. The High Court set aside this finding, holding that the sureties were either liable for the entire debt or none at all, relying on s. 139 Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) . Issue Whether the sureties were discharged entirely under s. 139 ICA , or liable to the limited extent contemplated under s. 133 ICA . Court’s Reasoning 1. Scope of s. 133 ICA — Discharge by Variance s. 133 ICA provides that any variance in the contrac...
Read more