Srinagar, Aug 20 (IANS) Jammu and Kashmir High Court in its ruling took exception to delay and said that a eight-year delay has shocked judicial conscience.
The J&K High Court has strongly criticised the handling of a drug-testing prosecution that remained pending for nearly eight years, observing that the prolonged delay and failure to preserve the accused’s statutory right to have the disputed sample re-tested “shocks the conscience of this Court.”
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal made the observations while quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against a pharmaceutical company under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, holding that continuation of the prosecution in the peculiar circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The case concerned a drug sample whose shelf life had expired in July 2012. The complaint was filed in May 2012, and the petitioner-company had promptly exercised its statutory right to challenge the government analyst’s report and sought re-analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory (CDL), Kolkata.
However, in October 2016, the Central Drugs Laboratory informed the trial court that the disputed sample had never been received by it for testing. Despite the laboratory’s communication, the matter continued for several years.
The High Court noted that cognisance was eventually taken in February 2020 on the basis of the earlier Government Analyst’s report, even though the sample had already expired and the statutory opportunity for meaningful re-testing had been lost.
The Court observed that the trial court, clerical machinery and Drug Inspector were required to ensure effective compliance with the statutory procedure.
However, instead of ensuring that the sample reached the designated laboratory within the prescribed period, the matter was allowed to remain pending through repeated reminders.
The High Court termed the case a “stark instance” where the statutory timeline had effectively been rendered meaningless. The Court further observed that once the Central Drugs Laboratory reported in 2016 that it had not received the sample, the trial court ought to have conducted a proper enquiry to determine where the sample had gone, at what stage it was lost and who was responsible for the failure.
Expressing serious concern, the High Court said it was “deeply perturbed” by the casual manner in which the matter had been handled.
The Court noted that although the sample had expired in July 2012, the trial court proceeded in 2020 on the basis of the earlier government analyst’s report, despite the fact that the accused’s statutory opportunity for effective re-analysis had been irretrievably lost.
The High Court emphasised that the failure could not be attributed to the petitioner-company, which had exercised its statutory right within the prescribed period. The Court also held that the extraordinary delay had materially affected the fairness of the proceedings and attracted the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court made it clear that concerns relating to public health cannot be used to dilute the requirement of a fair and legally compliant procedure. Where the quality of a drug is under question, it said, the testing mechanism must be completed promptly, properly and in accordance with law, so that both public-health interests and the accused’s right of defence are adequately protected.
Taking serious note of the procedural lapses, the High Court directed an administrative examination of the matter and ordered the Drug Controller, Drugs and Food Control Organisation, J&K, to constitute a committee to determine responsibility for the failure. The committee has been directed to ascertain why the disputed sample failed to reach the Central Drugs Laboratory and whether any negligence was committed by the Drug Inspector or any other officer concerned.
The committee has also been asked to examine whether there was any role, interference or mischief by any official of the petitioner-company in preventing the sample from reaching the laboratory.
The Court directed that all stakeholders be given an opportunity of being heard before any conclusion is reached. After examining the circumstances, the High Court ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-company, holding that allowing the prosecution to continue despite the loss of the statutory right to re-test the sample would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
The judgment underlines the importance of strict adherence to statutory safeguards in drug-testing prosecutions and makes clear that procedural fairness, timely scientific examination and the accused’s right to an effective defence cannot be compromised by prolonged administrative or judicial inaction.
–IANS
sq/rad
