Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Kamlesh Patel & Anr vs State Of J&K on 30 March, 2026
Sr. No. 03
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
CRMC No. 115/2019
Kamlesh Patel & anr. .... Petitioner
Through:- Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Avantika Sharma, Advocate
V/s
State of J&K .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. Bhanu Jasrotia, G. A.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
30.03.2026
1. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashment of
complaint titled State through Drug Inspector, Leh vs. Kamlesh Patel & Anr.,
pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Leh, wherein the
petitioners stand summoned for alleged contravention of Section 18(a)(i) read
with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be the Director of M/s West Coast Pharmaceuticals
Works Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical
products, whereas petitioner No. 2 is its dealer, from whose premises the sample
of the drug in question was lifted by the respondent-Drug Inspector.
3. The factual matrix, shorn of unnecessary detail, reveals that a sample of Iron
Folic Acid Suspension bearing Batch No. WL13190, manufactured in October,
2013 and having expiry in September, 2015, was lifted in accordance with the
statutory procedure. The sample was divided into four parts, and one portion was
forwarded to the Government Analyst, Combined Food and Drug Laboratory,
Jammu, which, vide report dated 06.05.2015, declared the sample as “not of
standard quality”.
2
4. The petitioners, availing their statutory right, disputed the said report and sought
re-analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata. It is an admitted position
that the said laboratory, upon receipt of the sample on 09.09.2015, sought
specification and method of analysis from the manufacturer vide communication
dated 18.09.2015.
5. The petitioners supplied the requisite information on 07.10.2015, which was
received by the Central Drugs Laboratory only on 16.10.2015. However, the
prosecution rests its case upon a report purportedly issued by the Central Drugs
Laboratory dated 06.10.2015 declaring the sample “not of standard quality”.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has, with considerable vehemence,
contended that the entire prosecution is vitiated by manifest procedural
illegality. It is argued that once the Central Drugs Laboratory itself had
requisitioned the specification and method of analysis, any testing prior to
receipt thereof is legally impermissible and scientifically untenable.
7. It is further contended that the report dated 06.10.2015 is ex facie improbable, as
the requisite material was supplied only on 07.10.2015 and received by the
laboratory on 16.10.2015.
8. Learned counsel has also urged that the shelf life of the drug expired in
September, 2015 and, therefore, any re-analysis conducted thereafter defeats the
valuable statutory right of the petitioners and renders the report unreliable.
9. Additionally, it has been argued that the complaint does not disclose specific
allegations qua the role of the petitioners and, thus, continuation of proceedings
would amount to abuse of process of law, reliance being placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelu Chopra & Anr. vs. Bharti,
(2009) 10 SCC 184. Respondent on the other hand despite repeated
opportunities have chosen not to file any objections.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is
noticed that the complaint was initially pending before Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Leh, who had taken cognizance of the matter against the petitioners.
However, subsequently, on a separate petition filed by the petitioners, this Court
3
transferred the said complaint to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu,
where it is presently pending. It is further noted that the proceedings therein
have been stayed vide order dated 08.03.2019 passed by this Court.
11. Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, confers a valuable statutory
right upon an accused to challenge the report of the Government Analyst and to
seek re-analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory, whose report is treated as
conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. This right is not illusory but
substantive in nature and must be meaningfully preserved.
12. In the present case, the admitted chronology assumes decisive significance. The
Central Drugs Laboratory sought specification and method of analysis on
18.09.2015. The same was supplied by the petitioners only on 07.10.2015 and
received by the laboratory on 16.10.2015. Despite this, the prosecution relies
upon a report dated 06.10.2015.
13. The aforesaid sequence is not merely irregular; it strikes at the root of the
prosecution. Once the laboratory itself acknowledged the necessity of obtaining
specification and method of analysis, it could not have validly undertaken the
test prior to receipt thereof. The issuance of a report dated 06.10.2015, therefore,
renders the prosecution case inherently doubtful and legally unsustainable.
14. Equally significant is the admitted fact that the shelf life of the drug expired in
September, 2015. It is well settled that the accused has a valuable right to have
the sample tested within its shelf life. Denial of this right, whether by delay or
procedural lapse attributable to the prosecution, causes irreparable prejudice and
vitiates the prosecution.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that
where the right of re-analysis is frustrated, continuation of prosecution would
amount to abuse of process of law.
16. In the instant case, the combined effect of (i) doubtful authenticity of the Central
Drugs Laboratory report, and (ii) frustration of the statutory right of re-analysis
within shelf life, renders the continuation of criminal proceedings wholly
unjustified.
4
17. The contention regarding absence of specific allegations also merits
consideration. It is trite that criminal prosecution cannot be sustained on vague
and omnibus allegations without delineating the role of each accused. The
complaint, as it stands, does not appear to satisfy this fundamental requirement.
18. This Court is conscious that the power under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised sparingly. However, where the material on record itself demonstrates
that continuation of proceedings would result in manifest injustice and abuse of
the process of Court, the inherent jurisdiction must be exercised to secure the
ends of justice.
19. The present case squarely falls within such parameters.
20. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
complaint in question suffers from fundamental legal infirmities and that
continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
21. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Complaint titled State through Drug
Inspector, Leh vs. Kamlesh Patel & Anr., pending before the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Jammu along with all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, is hereby quashed.
22. The petition stands disposed of. The court below be notified with this order.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
Judge
JAMMU
RAM MURTI
30.03.2026
Narinder Kumar
2026.04.04 13:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document