Karnataka HC Sends Glaxo And Former Manager’s Drug-Price Case Back To Evidence Stage, Setting Aside Charges Framed Before Evidence

The petitioners—pharmaceutical company M/s Glaxo SmithKline Asia Pvt. Ltd. and its former Assistant Logistics Manager—were prosecuted on a private complaint alleging violations of paragraphs 15(1) and 15(2) of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The allegations concerned vaccines allegedly found without prescribed price markings and a failure to furnish the requisite price list

After earlier proceedings, the Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners on 17 December 2019 without first recording prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

The High Court had previously directed a fresh examination-in-chief of the complainant’s witness; during the subsequent proceedings, the seized drugs could not be traced in the trial court’s property room.

The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, challenging both the procedure used to frame charges and the consequences of the missing material objects.

Section 2(x) Cr.P.C. defines a warrant case by reference to the punishment prescribed; a case punishable with imprisonment extending to seven years falls within that category.

Under Section 244 Cr.P.C., in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate must hear the prosecution and take the evidence produced in support of it before considering whether to frame charges.

The accused may seek discharge under Section 245 before charges are framed.

The Court relied on Sunil Mehta v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 9 SCC 209, and Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 14 SCC 115, in support of the required procedure.

It also referred to Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, and Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, concerning the significance of the missing material objects and the assessment of the prosecution case.

The alleged offences carried a maximum term of seven years’ imprisonment, making the complaint a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report.

The Magistrate framed charges without first recording prosecution evidence, thereby depriving the petitioners of the statutory opportunity to seek discharge under Section 245; the procedure was materially irregular.

The seized drugs were also unavailable, and the Court regarded their production and proof as potentially significant because they were the physical evidence allegedly seized during the inspection.

However, it did not determine that their absence required termination of the prosecution; it held that the effect of their non-availability was for the Magistrate to consider, including on any discharge application.

It set aside the 17 December 2019 order framing charges against the petitioners and remitted the matter to the Magistrate to proceed afresh from the stage of recording prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.

The petitioners were permitted to apply for discharge, which the Magistrate must consider on its merits in light of the Court’s observations, the cited precedents and the report concerning the missing seized objects; all other contentions were left open.