M/S LIFE VISION HEALTHCARE vs STATE AT THE INSTANCE ASST DRUGS CONTROLLER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1600 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. M/S LIFE VISION HEALTHCARE
PLOT NO. 140, 141
EPIP, PHASE-1, JHARMAJRI,
HIMACHAL PRADESH-174 103
REP. BY ITS PARTNER,
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. NAVEEEN KUMAR BANSAL
2. SRI NAVEENE KUMAR BANSAL
S/O VIJAY KUMAR BANSAL
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
MANAGING PARTNER OF
M/S LIFE VISION HEALTHCARE
PLOT NO. 140-141, EPIP PHASE-1,
JHARMAJRI, BADDI, DISTRICT-SOLAN
HIMACHALPRADESH-174 103.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NITIN BHASIR, ADVOCATE
SRI. UDAY URS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE AT THE INSTANCE
ASST DRUGS CONTROLLER
BENGALURU CIRCLE-1
BENGALURU
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KANATAKA,
Digitally signed by
PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
HIGH COURT,
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN
C.C.NO.43/2023 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL COURT FOR
ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED
VIOLATION OF SEC. 18(a)(i) R/W 27(d) OF DRUGS AND
COSMETICS ACT AND RULE THEREUNDER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1
and 2 in C.C.No.43/2023 for the violation of offence Section
18(a)(i) punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder, presently pending
on the file of Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru
(for short, 'the learned Magistrate').
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
2. The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the
records, are that the respondent-CW.4, namely, the Assistant
Drugs Controller, Bengaluru Circle-1, Bengaluru, has instituted
a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, alleging commission of the offence punishable under
Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for
contravention of Section 18(a)(i) of the said Act, against the
petitioners and two other accused persons.
3. It is averred in the complaint that petitioner No.1-
accused No.1, namely, M/s. Life Vision Healthcare, is a
pharmaceutical manufacturing company engaged in the
manufacture and sale of drugs, and accused No.2, who is
petitioner No.2 herein, is the Managing Partner of the said
company. It is further alleged that accused No.1-company had
manufactured and marketed a drug bearing the name 'Impcal
Tablets' (Calcium Orotate with Vitamin D3 Tablets I.P.), B.No.
LTA-2497, manufactured in September 2019 and having an
expiry date of February 2021. Upon analysis, the said drug was
reported to be 'Not of Standard Quality'.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the
respondent has alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 have
contravened the provisions of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940, which is punishable under Section 27(d)
of the said Act.
5. Upon consideration of the private complaint, Forms
Nos.13, 17 and 18, notices issued under Sections 18A and 18B
of the Act, and the connected correspondence, replies and
other documents placed on record, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the alleged offence and proceeded to issue
summons to the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the order
of taking cognizance and issuance of summons, the petitioners
have preferred this petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
7. Apart from raising various other contentions, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners primarily
contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to apply his
judicious mind while taking cognizance of the alleged offence. It
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
was argued that the mandatory requirement contemplated
under Section 23(4)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
has not been complied with, inasmuch as the respondent failed
to forward the seized drug to the Government Analyst for
analysis forthwith. On the contrary, the seized drug was
forwarded for chemical analysis after a lapse of two days from
the date of its seizure.
8. It was further contended that the private complaint
itself came to be instituted after the expiry of the shelf life of
the drug, thereby depriving the petitioners of their valuable
statutory right under Sections 25(3) and 25(4) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to seek re-analysis of the drug by the
Central Drugs Laboratory. According to the learned counsel,
such failure has resulted in prejudice to the petitioners and has
seriously impaired their statutory defence.
9. The learned counsel further submitted that
petitioner No.2 cannot be prosecuted merely on the ground
that he is the Managing Partner of accused No.1-company,
particularly in the absence of any specific allegation or material
demonstrating his involvement in, or responsibility for, the day-
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
to-day conduct of the business of the company. On these
grounds, the learned counsel sought to contend that the
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is
unsustainable in law and, accordingly, prayed that the petition
be allowed.
10. In order to buttress his argument, he relied on the
following judgments:
i. Medicamen Biotech Ltd v. Rubina
Bose, Drug Inspector - (2008) 7 SCC 196
ii. State of Punjab v. National Organic
Chemical Industries Ltd., - (1996) 11 SCC 613
iii. Inox Air Products Ltd., v. State of
Andra Pradesh - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 209
iv. Lalankumar Singh v. State of
Maharashtra - 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383
11. Per contra , the learned HCGP, opposing the prayer
sought by the petitioners, contended that the averments made
in the private complaint prima facie disclose that petitioner
No.2 is the Managing Partner of petitioner No.1-company and is
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
actively involved in the affairs and functioning of the said
company. Therefore, petitioner No.2 is also liable to be
prosecuted for the alleged offences along with petitioner No.1.
12. With regard to the alleged delay in forwarding the
seized drug for chemical analysis, the learned HCGP submitted
that, under special circumstances and for justifiable reasons,
the period for conducting the analysis may be extended. In the
present case, the drug was initially seized from the
pharmaceutical establishment of CW.3 and was thereafter
forwarded for chemical analysis, which revealed that the drug
was not of standard quality. During the course of further
enquiry, CW.3 disclosed that the said drug had been supplied
by petitioner No.1-company. Thereafter, the respondent
proceeded with the investigation against the accused persons
by following the procedure prescribed under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder. Hence, it was
contended that there was neither any procedural irregularity
nor any undue delay in forwarding the sample for chemical
examination.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
13. The learned HCGP further submitted that the report
of the Government Analyst clearly establishes, prima facie , that
the drug supplied by petitioner No.1-company to CW.3 was not
of standard quality. In view of the material available on record,
a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, and
therefore, the proceedings initiated against them do not
warrant interference by this Court at this stage. Accordingly,
the learned HCGP sought for dismissal of the petition.
14. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the materials on record.
15. On careful perusal of the private complaint
averments and the cognizance order passed by the learned
Magistrate, it is evident that, on 18.02.2020, CW.2, namely,
the Assistant Drugs Controlle r-1,Bengaluru Circle-1, Bengaluru,
had drawn a legal sample of the drug, namely, 'Impcal Tablets'
(Calcium Orotate with Vitamin D3 Tablets I.P.), B.No.LTA-2497,
manufactured in September 2019 and having an expiry date of
February 2021, from the pharmaceutical establishment of
CW.3, by issuing Form No.17 dated 18.02.2020.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
16. During the course of subsequent enquiry, it was
revealed that the aforesaid drug had been manufactured by
petitioner No.1-company, of which petitioner No.2 is stated to
be the Managing Partner. Thereafter, on 20.02.2020, i.e., after
a lapse of two days from the date of seizure, the sample of the
drug was forwarded for chemical analysis along with the
memorandum in Form No.18, in accordance with Sections 23
and 24 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
17. Subsequently, on 24.08.2020, CW.4 received the
test report, wherein the drug was declared to be 'Not of
Standard Quality' insofar as the parameter relating to 'Assay
for Vitamin D3' was concerned. On the following day, i.e.,
25.08.2020, CW.4 issued a notice to CW.3 under Sections 18A
and 18B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, along with the
test report in Form No.13. In response thereto, CW.3 disclosed
that he had purchased the aforesaid drug from the petitioners.
18. No doubt, the petitioners sought re-analysis of the
drug sample by addressing a letter dated 15.04.2021 to CW.4.
However, the records disclose that CW.4 had informed the
petitioners, vide communication dated 28.08.2020, that the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
drug sample had been declared as 'Not of Standard Quality',
along with a copy of the test report. Despite receiving the said
intimation, the petitioners did not seek re-analysis within a
reasonable time and approached CW.4 only after a lapse of
nearly eight months. Thus, the request for re-analysis was
belated.
19. By the time the petitioners sought re-analysis, the
shelf life of the drug had already expired in February 2021. In
the circumstances, the inability to subject the sample to further
analysis cannot, by itself, be attributed to any procedural lapse
or negligence on the part of the respondent or CW.4. Therefore,
the contention of the petitioners that the respondent committed
a procedural irregularity in this regard cannot be accepted on
the basis of the material presently available on record.
20. Further, as already discussed hereinabove, there is
no inordinate delay in forwarding the seized drug sample for
chemical analysis. Admittedly, the drug sample was seized on
18.02.2020 and forwarded for chemical analysis on
20.02.2020, i.e., within a period of two days from the date of
seizure. In the circumstances, the expression 'forthwith'
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
employed under Section 23(4)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, 1940, cannot be construed to mean that the seized drug
sample must necessarily be forwarded for chemical analysis
immediately upon its seizure, without undertaking the other
procedural steps contemplated under the provisions of the said
Act. The authorities are required to comply with the prescribed
procedure, including seizure of the drug sample and issuance of
the requisite notice to the retailer, before forwarding the
sample for analysis. Therefore, forwarding the seized drug
sample for chemical analysis within two days cannot, in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, be construed as
an undue or unexplained delay. Hence, the contention urged by
the learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard is devoid
of merit and cannot be accepted.
21. The next contention urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that petitioner No.2, though stated to be
the Managing Partner of petitioner No.1-company, was not
concerned with or responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the
company. However, the petitioners have failed to place any
cogent or reliable material on record to substantiate the said
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
contention. On the contrary, the averments made in the private
complaint prima facie indicate that petitioner No.2, being the
Managing Partner of petitioner No.1-company, was actively
involved in the affairs and day-to-day functioning of the
company. In view of the specific allegations made in the
complaint, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts and are not
applicable to the case on hand.
22. Upon an overall consideration of the averments
made in the private complaint and the material placed on
record, prima facie reveals, there is serious allegations have
been made against the petitioners regarding the manufacture
and sale of drugs which were found to be not of standard
quality. The allegations, if established, have a direct bearing on
public health and cannot be lightly brushed aside at this stage.
The matter, therefore, warrants a full-fledged trial, wherein the
respective parties will have an opportunity to establish their
case in accordance with law. Needless to observe that the
petitioners are at liberty to urge all the contentions raised
herein before the learned Magistrate during the course of trial.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60798
CRL.P No. 1600 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010089352024
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
considered opinion that the petition does not merit
dismissed.
consideration. Accordingly, the petition stands
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3