M/S J B CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD vs UNION OF INDIA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10273 OF 2021


BETWEEN:

1. M/S. J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,
NO.128/1B, 129(1) GIDC
ANKALESHWAR, BHARUCH,
GUJARAT-393002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. SANJAY PATEL.

2. MR. JYOTHINDRA B. MODY,
(DECEASED AS ON 21.07.2020),
ERSTWHILE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,
NEELAM CENTER B-WING,
TH
4 FLOOR, HIND CYCLE ROAD,
WORLI, MUMBAI-400030.

3. MR. KAMLESH L UDANI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O SRI. LALITHKUMAR UDANI,
ERSTWHILE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
(TECHNICAL AND PRODUCTION)
M/S. J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD,
NEELAM CENTER, B-WING,
TH
4 FLOOR, HIND CYCLE ROAD, WORLI,
MUMBAI-4400030, MAHARASTRA.

NOW HAVING OFFICE
AT PLOT NO.D2/CH/376-377,
DAHEJ GIDC, BHARUCH-392130.

4. MR. SANJAY PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


S/O CHANDUBHAI PATEL
R/AT B-30, STREET No.4,
AVDHOOT NAGAR-1,
BHOLAV, BHARUCH-392015.

ALSO AT:
M/S. J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,
NO.128/1B, 129(1) GIDC,
ANKALESHWARI, BHARUCH,
GUJARAT-393002.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GANAPATI HEDGE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. GAURAV MANDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
REP. BY DRUGS INSPECTOR,
CDSCO, SUB ZONE,
BANGALORE-560001.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
01.12.2021 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.408/2017 ON THE FILE OF
TH
THE 55 ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION UNDER SEC.397 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (ANNEXURE-A) AND TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2017 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.89/2013 BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES, BANGLAORE, DISMISSING THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONES U/S 258 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ALLOW THE SAID
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS U/S 258 OF CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 BY PASSING AN ORDER FOR
STOPPING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE IN
C.C.NO.NO.89/2013 INSTITUTED BY THE RESPONDENT
ALLEGING VIOLATION OF SEC.18(a)(i),17(b) OF DRUGS BY
THE PETITIONERS.

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 29.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying this Court to set aside the order dated 01.12.2021
th
passed in Crl.R.P.No.408/2017, on the file of 55 Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing the
petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. and to set aside the order
dated 18.02.2017 passed in C.C.No.89/2013 by the Hon’ble
Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, dismissing the
application filed under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and to allow the
said application by passing an order for stopping the
proceedings of the case in C.C.No.89/2013.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the
respondent/complainant is that the respondent filed a private
complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the
petitioner had indulged in selling the tablet “Dilcardia 30”. The

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


Drug Inspector on 08.03.2011, drew a sample for test and
analysis of the drug from the premises of C.G.H.S. and
forwarded the same for test and analysis to the Government
Analyst, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata vide Memorandum
No.ADC/BSZ/KTK/7-2/1795 dated 08.03.2011 and having
received the report had filed the private complaint and the Trial
Court took the cognizance. The same was challenged before
this Court by initiating the proceedings under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. for quashing of cognizance for the offence punishable
under Sections 17(b), 18(a)(i), 27(d) and 32(1) of Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940. This Court comes to the conclusion that
the correctness or otherwise of the document cannot be
decided in this proceeding and the same is required to be
decided in a full fledged trial to be conducted before the Special
Court and dismissed the criminal petition reserving liberty to
the petitioner to approach the Special Court for economic
offences either to seek his discharge or to participate in the
proceeding and to demonstrate that no offences are made out
against him in the proceeding pending before it. The said order
was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) Nos.5954-5955/2014. The Hon’ble Apex Court
also did not entertain the petitions. However, taking note of the

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


fact that the petitioner, being the Chairman and Managing
Director of M/s. J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited, is
aged about 87 years and had undergone surgery for some
ailment, granted exemption from personal appearance in the
matter before the Trial Court and on his behalf his counsel may
appear and prosecute the matter, till the trial is over. However,
directed to appear before the Court to record his statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and with the aforesaid liberty,
special leave petitions were disposed of. This order was passed
on 15.07.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an
application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. praying to stop the
proceedings and the Trial Court passed the following order:
“The present case is registered on a complaint
under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., but this Section 258 is
applicable to the cases instituted otherwise than
upon complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Thus
Section 258 of Cr.P.C. cannot be made applicable
here. Hence the application is dismissed.”


4. The said order is challenged before the Revisional
Court. The Revisional Court by order dated 01.12.2021 passed
an order on maintainability of the revision petition and comes
to the conclusion that revision petition is not maintainable and
particularly in paragraph No.7 made an observation that the

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


company is having perpetual succession and common seal.
After the death of Jyothindra B. Mody, who is accused No.2, it
was incumbent upon the revision petitioners to bring the next
Managing Director on record to proceed with the matter. He is
the legal representative of the company. He should have been
brought on record, but just he got filed memo dated
24.08.2021 reporting the death of petitioner No.2 and asked to
pass appropriate orders, but cleverly next Managing Director
who has succeeded is not brought on record to prosecute the
matter. As the cause of action survives for him, but without
successor of petitioner No.2 on record, the petition cannot be
proceeded with as against petitioner No.2. The Revisional
Court also taken note of Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and observed
that proceedings can be stayed by the Magistrate for the
reasons recorded by him and without pronouncing the
judgment and if the evidence of principal witness is recorded
and if the proceedings are stayed, Magistrate would pronounce
the judgment of acquittal and in other cases it is the effect of
discharge. It is also observed that the substance of accusation
is recorded by the Trial Court against petitioner Nos.3 and 4.
They do not have any locus standi to seek discharge as
contemplated under the provisions of Section 258 of Cr.P.C.

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


Hence, the petition against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 has become
infructuous and comes to the conclusion that petition itself is
not maintainable and dismissed the same as not maintainable.
5. Being aggrieved by both the orders of the Trial
Court and the Revisional Court, the present petition is filed
before this Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners in the present petition extracting the provisions of
Section 258 of Cr.P.C. is that both the Courts have committed
an error in not entertaining the application filed under Section
258 of Cr.P.C. and observation made by both the Courts leads
to absurdity and ought not to be accepted. The Trial Court has
erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that the
present case is registered based on a complaint filed under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would vehemently
contend that the prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act is instituted based on a report filed by the Drugs Inspector
and not on a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The same
is clear from the language of Section 32 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act. The prosecution report under Section 32 of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, would be akin to a police report

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


under Section 190(b) of Cr.P.C., upon which cognizance of an
offence can be taken. Hence, the order passed by the Trial
Judge as per Annexure-B is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that
both the Courts have failed to appreciate the powers of the
Drugs Inspector under Section 22 of the Act and the procedure
followed before initiating the prosecution. Both the Courts failed
to take note of the said fact and fails to take note of Section 32
of the Act which defines taking cognizance of offences under
the Act and that the same does not require cognizance to be
taken only on the basis of the complaint filed. The learned
counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Section 32 of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and compared the same with
Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and so also with
Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 32 of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act speaks about institution of the
prosecution for cognizance to be taken instead of the words “No
Court shall take cognizance except on a complaint in writing”,
which can be found in other special enactments, such as the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or the Trademarks Act, 1999.
Hence, it is clear that it is the intention of the legislature that
no written complaint is required to be filed by a Drugs

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to institute
prosecution. Hence, the approach of the Trial Court is
erroneous. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this
Court, the finding that petitioner No.1 company was not
represented. That is an observation made by the Sessions
Court in revision and so also finding that accused Nos.3 and 4
have already recorded their plea. The learned counsel also
brought to the notice of this Court that there is no prima facie
basis for prosecuting the petitioners. Hence, prays this Court to
set aside both the orders and allow the application filed under
Section 258 of Cr.P.C.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his
arguments would contend that the report given by the analyst
is not correct. The mode and method adopted is erroneous and
no conventional test. Only modified release test and fails to
take note of report given wherein clean chit was given and
inspite of it, proceeded to file a complaint. The complaint was
filed in 2013 after two years. The Trial Court has taken
cognizance casually and there is an error on the part of the
Revisional Court also. The modified release test would give
correct test report. The very orders passed by both the Courts
suffers from its infirmity.

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
would vehemently contend that no such clean chit is given as
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The
invoking of Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not
arise and it is very clear that before initiating the proceedings,
test was conducted by the analyst and the same is not barred
by law. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that
accused No.2 is the Chairman and he was the whole and sole
and when he passed away, ought to have brought on record
the next Managing Director and the same is rightly observed by
the Revisional Court. The learned counsel also brought to the
notice of this Court the order passed by the Supreme Court,
wherein it is categorically held that accused No.2 was exempted
due to his age as well as his ailment. A direction was given to
appear before the Court while recording the statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The order passed by this Court and also
the Apex Court is very clear that it is a matter of trial and
hence, there cannot be any setting aside of the order.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for the respondent, the points that
would arise for the consideration of this Court are:

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021



(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
dismissing the application filed under Section
258 of Cr.P.C. and so also the Revisional Court
committed an error in dismissing the revision
petition as not maintainable?


(ii) What order?
Point No.(i):
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties, number of grounds are urged in the petition regarding
finding given by the Revisional Court as well as the order
passed by the Trial Court. No doubt, this Court has extracted
the order of the Trial Court wherein the Trial Court comes to
the conclusion that the application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C.
is not applicable. The learned counsel for the petitioners in the
petition has extracted Section 258 of Cr.P.C. in paragraph
No.38 i.e., power to stop proceedings in certain cases – In any
summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a
Magistrate of the First Class or with previous sanction of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for
reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any
stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such
stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the
principal witness has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


acquittal and in any other case, release the accused, and such
release shall have the effect of discharge. The provision is very
clear that Section 258 of Cr.P.C. permits in any summons case
instituted otherwise than upon complaint. The Trial Court
comes to the conclusion that a private complaint is filed under
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and hence, Section 258 of Cr.P.C. cannot
be made applicable here.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly
brought to the notice of this Court Section 32 of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act. The same provides for cognizance of offences,
wherein sub-clause (1) is clear that no prosecution under this
Chapter shall be instituted except by an Inspector. No doubt,
the proviso is very clear that the prosecution has to be
instituted by an Inspector. But that does not mean that it is
not a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., as contended by
the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned counsel
brought to the notice of this Court, the provisions of Section
142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein the proviso is
very clear that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under Section 138 except upon a complaint. The
learned counsel would contend that no such provision is made
in Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act even though no

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


such word is used that no Court shall take cognizance except
on a complaint. But in the case on hand, it has to be noted that
the proceedings is not initiated based upon any police report.
The very contention that the report of the Inspector itself is
akin to a police report cannot be accepted. Section 190(1)(a),
(b) and (c) of Cr.P.C. is very clear that subject to the provisions
of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any
Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this
behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any
offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute
such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon
information received from any person other than a police officer
or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been
committed. The complaint is filed by the Inspector invoking
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. That does not mean that the report is
akin to the police report. If that is the case, based on that
report would have initiated the proceedings without invoking
the provisions under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The proviso of
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is invoked and the same is based on a
private complaint and cognizance was taken. Hence, the first
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be
accepted.

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


13. It is also to be noted that when the cognizance was
taken based on the private complaint, the same was challenged
before this Court in Crl.P.No.7332/2013, for the offence
punishable under Sections 17(b), 18(a)(i), 27(d) and 32(1) of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. When the said cognizance
order was challenged, this Court made an observation that drug
which was manufactured and sold by the petitioner company
was subjected to chemical analysis and the report produced at
Annexure-R1 would disclose that the drug, which is
manufactured and sold by the petitioner is spurious. That the
correctness or otherwise of this document cannot be decided in
this proceeding and the same is required to be decided in a full-
fledged trial to be conducted before the Special Court for
economic offences. However, liberty was given to the petitioner
to approach the Special Court for economic offences either to
seek his discharge or to participate in the proceeding and to
demonstrate that no offences are made out against him in the
proceeding pending before it. The said order was challenged
before the Apex Court and the Apex Court also held that the
petitions are filed urging various legal grounds questioning the
correctness. The main contention was taken that the petitioner
was aged about 87 years and he underwent surgery for some

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


ailment and the same was taken on and exemption was given
from personal appearance in the matter before the Trial Court.
But directed the petitioner to subject for 313 statement.
Hence, it is very clear that very cognizance was challenged and
the same was dismissed and affirmed by the Apex Court. Under
the circumstances, this Court cannot once again exercise the
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There is a fundamental
defect by the petitioner by filing an application under Section
258 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion
that the said provision cannot be invoked.
14. No doubt, the Revisional Court dealt with the
matter on different grounds. When the petition was filed before
the Revisional Court on behalf of the company as well as the
person who earlier was the Chairman and Managing Director,
who is no more and by petitioner Nos.3 and 4, the Revisional
Court made an observation with regard to the maintainability of
the revision petition and comes to the conclusion that it was
incumbent upon the revision petitioners to bring the next
Managing Director on record to proceed with the matter. He is
the legal representative of the company. He should have been
brought on record. In order to continue the proceedings on
account of death of petitioner No.2, ought to have brought the

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


next Managing Director on record. The Revisional Court in
paragraph Nos.8 and 9 taken note of factual aspects that the
substance of the accusation is already recorded by the Trial
Court against petitioner Nos.3 and 4. It is also observed that
petitioner No.2 passed away when the matter was posted for
judgment. When such being the case, the finding given by the
Revisional Court is also with regard to the maintainability as
well as locus standi of the petition and when the application
under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in a case of
private complaint, there is a fundamental defect and this
provision is also invoked in a belated stage. Hence, I do not
find any error on the part of both the Trial Court as well as
Revisional Court in passing such an order. When both the
orders are not suffers from its infirmity, the question of
exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not
arise. This Court has taken note of the accusation made
against the petitioner while dismissing the petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same is confirmed by the Apex
Court. Hence, no ground is made out by the petitioners to set
aside the order as sought in the prayer and hence, I do not find
any grounds to entertain this petition under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. Hence, point No.(i) is answered accordingly.

- 17 -
CRL.P No. 10273 of 2021


Point No.(ii):
15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE

MD