Section 202 CrPC Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints; Limitation Runs from Date Identity of Accused Is Known — Supreme Court

Case Name: The State of Kerala & Anr. v. M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr. (with connected appeals)
Citation: 2026 INSC 200; Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4524 of 2023, Diary No. 18999 of 2023, and SLP (Crl.) No. 8867 of 2023
Date of Judgment/Order: 26 February 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

Held: The Supreme Court held that where a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is instituted by a public servant acting in discharge of official duties, strict compliance with Section 202(1) CrPC regarding postponement of process for accused residing outside territorial jurisdiction is not mandatory in view of the proviso to Section 200 CrPC and the ratio in Cheminova India Limited. The Court further held that for purposes of limitation under Sections 468 and 469 CrPC, the period commences under Section 469(1)(c) from the date the identity of the accused becomes known to the competent authority during investigation. Accordingly, complaints filed within three years from such date are not barred. Questions relating to vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Act are factual and to be decided at trial, not at the stage of quashing.

Summary: The first set of appeals arose from a complaint filed by the Drugs Inspector (Intelligence Branch), Thrissur, alleging misbranding of a vaccine manufactured by M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd., where the outer carton described the drug as “Easy Five Pentavalent Vaccine” while the inner vial was labelled “Easy Four Tetravalent Vaccine.” Following verification of invoices, returns and credit notes through inspections conducted in January and April 2006, the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint on 20 January 2009 under Sections 18(a)(i), 17(b), 17(c) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The High Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the Magistrate had not conducted a mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC since the accused resided outside jurisdiction. The Supreme Court examined Sections 468, 469 and 473 CrPC and held that limitation commenced only on 18 April 2006, when the identity of all accused was ascertained, and therefore the complaint filed in January 2009 was within the three-year limitation period. On the issue of Section 202 CrPC, the Court harmonised it with Section 200 CrPC and relied on Cheminova India Limited to hold that a complaint by a public servant stands on a different footing. In the connected appeal relating to prosecution against directors of another company for supply of hypodermic syringes declared “not of standard quality,” the Court held that the High Court prematurely quashed proceedings on the ground of insufficient averments under Section 34 of the Act, as whether directors were “in charge of” and “responsible to” the company is a matter of evidence for trial.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders quashing the complaints, upheld the validity of cognizance and summoning orders, and directed continuation of trial proceedings. It clarified that fresh summons be issued where required, including substitution of deceased managing personnel by persons in charge at the relevant time. The appeal by the accused challenging limitation was dismissed, while the appeals by the State and Drugs Inspector were allowed. Observations were confined to the questions of limitation and Section 202 CrPC, without affecting merits of the prosecutions.