Case Name: THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR. VS. M/S. PANACEA BIOTEC LTD. & ANR.
Petition Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 4524 of 2023.
Citation: 2026 INSC 200
Date of Judgement: 26.02.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI.
Background:
This appeal addressed whether a Magistrate must conduct a mandatory preliminary inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) before issuing a summons to an accused living outside their local jurisdiction specifically when the complaint is filed by a public servant performing official duties.
Facts of the Case:
In 2006, a complaint was submitted regarding the misbranding of a vaccine. Following an official investigation, the Drugs Inspector filed a formal complaint on 20.01.2009 against the respondents under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Magistrate subsequently issued a summons to the accused. The respondents challenged this in the High Court. The High Court held that the Magistrate had failed to conduct a required inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. because the accused resided outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
Issues of the Case:
- Whether a Magistrate is legally required to hold an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before summoning an accused residing outside their jurisdiction if the complainant is a public servant acting in an official capacity?
- Whether the limitation period for filing such a complaint begins at the time of initial notice or once the offender’s identity is confirmed?
Arguments of the Parties:
The State of Kerala argued that public servants are treated differently under the law. Relying on the case of Cheminova India Limited v. State of Punjab, they contended that the procedural inquiry under Section 202 is not required when a public servant files a complaint acting in their official capacity. They further argued the complaint was filed within the three-year limitation period, as the limitation clock started only after the investigation confirmed the identities of all involved parties on 18.04.2006.
The Respondents argued that the 2005 Amendment to the Cr.P.C. made Section 202 inquiries a strict requirement for all non-resident accused, without providing exceptions for public servants. They maintained that the Magistrate’s failure to conduct this inquiry was a significant procedural error that prejudiced their rights.
Judgement and Analysis:
In this case, the Supreme Court had to resolve a procedural issue regarding when a Magistrate is required to conduct/order a preliminary inquiry before summoning the accused. The High Court had earlier quashed criminal proceedings against the accused because a formal inquiry was not conducted under Section 202 of the CrPC. This section states that when a Magistrate receives a complaint, they must examine the complainant and witnesses under oath. However, if the complaint is filed by a public official acting in their official capacity, this part is not required. Section 202 requires a magistrate to postpone issuing a summons to an accused who lives outside the court’s jurisdiction. To ensure the validity of the complaint, the Magistrate must either inquire the case personally or order police officials to do it.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and upheld the Magistrate’s summoning order. The principle of harmonious interpretation was used to ensure that both the sections function together in harmony, without eroding or undermining the importance of either. The Hon’ble Court placed reliance on the case of Cheminova India Limited vs. State of Punjab (2021 SCC OnLine SC 573), wherein it was stated that the legislature in its wisdom has itself placed the public servant on a different pedestal as is evident from the Section 200 of CrPC. Keeping in view the aforementioned legal provisions and precedent, it was held that since Section 200 exempts public servants from being examined on oath due to their official status, it would be illogical and redundant to mandate a separate inquiry under Section 202 for the same official complaint, as the complaints are already backed by proper preliminary verification.
Regarding limitation, the Court held that the period does not start from an initial informal report. Section 468(2)(c) of the CrPC sets a three-year limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment for one to three years and Section 469(1)(c) of the Code states that limitation starts on the day the identity of the offender is known to the aggrieved person or the investigating officer. Since the offence is punishable up to two years under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the limitation period is three years. Since the identity of the accused persons was established on April 18, 2006 and the complaint was formally filed on January 20, 2009, it can be said that the case was filed within the permissible timeframe.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 does not apply to complaints filed by public servants acting in their official capacity. Additionally, the limitation period starts when the identity of the accused person is known and hence, the case was filed well within the permissible time-limit. Thus, the issues were settled accordingly.
