LAWS(KER)-2020-6-204

ZEE LABORATORIES Vs. DRUG INSPECTOR

Decided On June 12, 2020
ZEE LABORATORIES Appellant
V/S
DRUG INSPECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1262/2018, which is a private complaint filed by the first respondent/Drug Inspector (Intelligence Branch) before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I,Kannur for commission of offence punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940. The petitioners seek to quash the entire proceeding in C.C. on several grounds which they have taken in support of the plea for quashment.

(2.) It has come out during the course of the hearing that the learned Magistrate seized of the matter, did not conduct enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, 'the CrPC ), despite the fact that the petitioners were persons being indulged in their business activities beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Under Section 202(1) of CrPC, conduct of enquiry under the Section is mandatory in cases where parties reside outside the local jurisdiction of the court. This requirement of law was not observed in this case and as per the decided case laws pronounced by the authorities including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the failure to observe the requirement under Section 202(1) amounted to breach of mandatory provision of law and would consequently vitiate the entire proceedings.

(3.) The above legal provision applies to this case as well, in view of the report dated 14.05.2020 submitted by the learned Magistrate informing this Court that the complaint was taken to file without holding enquiry under Section 202(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, I am satisfied that the order of the court below issuing process to the petitioners is illegal and consequential legal proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a series of legal questions as to the maintainability of the complaint, I do not consider it to be fit and proper at this stage to go into those contentions inasmuch as failure to conduct 202 enquiry by itself has invalidated the order of the court issuing process to the petitioners.