01Facts
The Drugs Inspector filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners had violated 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.
¶ 2–3 · pp. 3–4The allegations concerned vaccines found without prescribed price markings and an alleged failure to provide the required price list
¶ 2–3 · pp. 3–4Following an earlier conviction and remand, the Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners on 17 December 2019 without first recording prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
¶ 3–4 · pp. 4–5The High Court later directed a fresh examination-in-chief of the complainant, but the seized drugs were subsequently reported missing from the trial court’s property room
¶ 4–5 · pp. 5–6 · ¶ 14 · p. 12The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, challenging both the procedure used to frame charges and the effect of the missing material objects
¶ 5, 7–8 · pp. 6–802Issues
i.Whether the Magistrate could frame charges in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report without first recording prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C.
¶ 11–13 · pp. 9–11ii.Whether the non-availability of the seized drugs justified quashing the criminal proceedings, or instead required consideration by the trial court
¶ 14–16 · pp. 12–1303Law Applied
Under Section 244 Cr.P.C., in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate must hear the prosecution and record the evidence produced in support of it before proceeding to consider whether charges should be framed; the accused may seek discharge under Section 245, and charges are considered under Section 246 Cr.P.C.
¶ 12–13 · pp. 10–11The 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
¶ 13 · p. 11It 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, in considering the significance of the missing material objects, while leaving their effect on the prosecution case for the Magistrate to assess
¶ 14–16 · pp. 12–13Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482Section 200Section 244Section 2Section 245
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Section 7Section 11
04Reasoning
The alleged offences carried a potential sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment and therefore constituted a warrant case. Because the complaint was instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate was required to record prosecution evidence under Section 244 Cr.P.C. before framing charges. Framing charges without doing so was a material procedural irregularity that deprived the petitioners of the opportunity to seek discharge at the proper stage
¶ 11–13 · pp. 9–11The Court also confirmed that the seized drugs could not be traced, and recognized their potential evidentiary significance. However, it did not determine that their absence required termination of the case; it left the consequences for the Magistrate to consider, including on any discharge application
¶ 14–16 · pp. 12–1405Holding
The petition was allowed in part.
¶ 16 · pp. 13–15The Court set aside the order dated 17 December 2019 framing charges 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 may apply for discharge, which the Magistrate must consider on its merits, taking account of the Court’s observations, the cited precedents, and the report that the seized material objects are unavailable. All contentions were left open
¶ 16 · pp. 13–15Original Court PDF
M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTDvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
