Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory For Complaints Filed By Public Servant In Official Duty: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held that a magistrate is not required to conduct a statutory inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summons to an accused residing outside the magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, where the complaint has been filed by a public servant acting in discharge of official duty. The Court set aside the Kerala High Court's order, which had quashed the magistrate's summoning order on this ground, in a dispute arising from allegations of misbranding of a pharmaceutical product against the accused manufacturer and its functionaries.
The proceedings arose from a complaint regarding alleged discrepancies in the labelling of a vaccine manufactured and sold by a pharmaceutical company. A medical officer of the Primary Health Centre, Thrissur informed a consumer on 21 October 2005 about an alleged discrepancy in the labelling of the drug. On 5 January 2006, the consumer filed a complaint before the Drugs Inspector regarding the alleged discrepancy. The Drugs Inspector received the complaint on 16 January 2006 and commenced an enquiry. During the enquiry, the inspector verified the vial and carton of the drug and inspected the premises of a medical agency from where the drug had allegedly been purchased. Statements of individuals connected with the sale and distribution of the drug were recorded and documents including invoices and credit notes were seized.
The enquiry indicated that certain vials of the drug were wrongly labelled and that remaining stock had been returned to the supplier. On 20 January 2009, the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur alleging offences under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Sections 17(b) and 17(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act. The Magistrate issued summons. The accused challenged the proceedings before the High Court which quashed the complaint on the ground that the Magistrate had not conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The State challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.
The Court addressed the question of whether compliance with Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory when a complaint is filed by a public servant. Drawing from the coordinate Bench decision in Cheminova India Limited v. State of Punjab, the Court recorded that "the legislature in its wisdom has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal, as would be evident from a perusal of proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
The Court further noted that "the object of holding an inquiry/investigation before taking cognizance, in cases where the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of such Magistrate, is to ensure that innocents are not harassed unnecessarily." It observed that "by virtue of proviso to Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate, while taking cognizance, need not record statement of such public servant, who has filed the complaint in discharge of his official duty." The Court observed that insisting on a separate inquiry before issuing summons to an accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction would render the statutory scheme meaningless in cases where the complaint is filed by a public servant.
Construing Section 202 harmoniously with Section 200 of the Code, the Court stated: "The present case emanates from a complaint by an officer, made in writing. In terms of Section 200 of the Code, the Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant is acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty or a Court has made the complaint. Here, an official complaint was made on authorisation by the State Government. In this factual setting, Section 202 of the Code would necessarily have to be construed harmoniously with Section 200 of the Code when considering postponement of the issue of process."
On the question of limitation, the Court observed that the period would commence under Section 469(1)(c) of the Code, stating that the said provision "clearly contemplates that the identity of the offender may emerge during 'investigation into the offence'." The Court recorded that the limitation period in the present case would run only from 18.04.2006, the date on which the identity of all accused persons was established before the competent authority, and thus the complaint filed on 20.01.2009 fell within the prescribed three-year period.
On the aspect of vicarious liability of company officials under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Court stated that whether the accused Directors were "'in charge of' and 'responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company' are questions of fact" and observed that these were "best left to be determined by the Trial Court, at the appropriate stage," recording that "the High Court's view per se was premature."
The Court set aside the impugned order of the Kerala High Court and upheld the magistrate's order taking cognizance and issuing summons as legally valid.
The Court clarified that its findings were limited to the questions raised in these appeals and would not amount to a final adjudication on the merits of the underlying cases, leaving all parties at liberty to raise issues of fact and law before the trial court at the appropriate stage. Since the dates for entering appearance had already elapsed in all the matters, the concerned courts were directed to issue fresh summons to all accused and proceed strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr. v. Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 200
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4524 of 2023 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
