Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Drugs Act Complaint as Time-Barred; Holds Limitation Runs from First Analyst Report, Not Central Laboratory Confirmation
Case Name: Ajay Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 04 February 2026
Citation: CRM-M-640-2021
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the period of limitation under Section 469 Cr.P.C. commences from the date of the first Government Analyst’s report declaring the drug “Not of Standard Quality” and not from the date of a subsequent confirmatory report of the Central Drugs Laboratory. The Court further held that filing of the complaint after expiry of the shelf life of the drug, thereby depriving the accused of their statutory right of re-analysis under Section 25(4) of the Act, vitiates the prosecution.
Summary: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of Complaint No.COMA/65/2019 dated 19.12.2019 filed under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa.
On 01.09.2015, the Drugs Inspector lifted a sample of “Zepcare-D” tablets manufactured by petitioner No.2-company. The Government Analyst, Punjab, vide report dated 09.10.2015, declared the sample “Not of Standard Quality” as the content of Pantoprazole was found deficient. Upon challenge by the manufacturer, the sample was sent for re-analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, which also declared it “Not of Standard Quality” vide report dated 27.07.2017.
The complaint was eventually filed on 19.12.2019 after obtaining sanction. The petitioners contended that the complaint was barred by limitation and that initiation of prosecution after expiry of the shelf life (June 2017) deprived them of their valuable right under Section 25(4) of the Act to seek re-analysis.
The State argued that limitation should be computed from the date of the Central Drugs Laboratory report dated 27.07.2017 and that the complaint filed on 19.12.2019 was within the three-year period.
The High Court examined Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. and relied upon the Supreme Court judgments in State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd., M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltd. v. Rubina Bose, and M/s Cheminova India Ltd., reiterating that limitation begins from the date when the offence is first disclosed, i.e., the initial analyst report, and not from a subsequent confirmatory report.
The Court held that the Government Analyst’s report dated 09.10.2015 disclosed the alleged offence. Therefore, limitation commenced from that date. The complaint filed on 19.12.2019 was clearly beyond the prescribed period of three years under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Further, since the shelf life of the drug expired in June 2017 and the complaint was filed much later, the petitioners were deprived of their statutory right of re-analysis under Section 25(4) of the Act. The Court held that such deprivation causes serious prejudice and continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law.
Decision: The petition was allowed. Complaint No.COMA/65/2019 dated 19.12.2019 under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the summoning order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the CJM, Mansa, along with all consequential proceedings, were quashed qua the petitioners.