A Drug Inspector inspected the appellant’s premises and alleged contravention of Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule 65(5)(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. It was alleged that the appellants dissipated bulk quantities of raw material/chemicals and sold it to different distributors. The Drug Inspector issued a show cause notice to the appellants after nearly three years of the search and a complaint was filed in the Court of law after lapse of one year and four months.
The Appellants challenged the proceedings in the High Court of Madras and sought quashing on several technical grounds amongst them one major ground was of the prosecution being delayed.
The Hon’ble High Court dismissed their petition observing that a trial was necessary to ascertain the facts of the case and passed an order for expedition of the trial.
Aggrieved by same, the appellants filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to take into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein the respondent provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show cause notice and the complaint.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, placing reliance on Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [2022 9 SCC 147] categorically held that delay in initiating criminal proceeding can be brushed aside if delay was explained however if delay is not explained then same can be fatal and prosecution can be quashed on the basis of same.