Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 18(a)(i), 17(b), 17(c), 27(d), 32 — Cognizance — Complaint by Drugs Inspector — Limitation under Sections 468–469 CrPC — Commencement of limitation where identity of offender emerges during inquiry — Held, limitation commences under Section 469(1)(c) CrPC from the date when identity of offender becomes known during investigation — Complaint filed within three years thereof is within limitation. (Paras 31–36) The allegation related to misbranding of vaccine labels. Though the initial private complaint was dated 05.01.2006, the identity of all accused persons crystallised only upon completion of inquiry and document verification on 18.04.2006. Applying Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, the limitation period commenced from the date when identity of offenders became known to the competent authority. The complaint dated 20.01.2009 was therefore within the three-year limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC for offences punishable up to three years. Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, where identity of the offender is ascertained during investigation, the period of limitation commences from such date under Section 469(1)(c), not from the date of initial information.

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 18(a)(i), 17(b), 17(c), 27(d), 32 — Cognizance — Complaint by Drugs Inspector — Limitation under Sections 468–469 CrPC — Commencement of limitation where identity of offender emerges during inquiry — Held, limitation commences under Section 469(1)(c) CrPC from the date when identity of offender becomes known during investigation — Complaint filed within three years thereof is within limitation. (Paras 31–36)

The allegation related to misbranding of vaccine labels. Though the initial private complaint was dated 05.01.2006, the identity of all accused persons crystallised only upon completion of inquiry and document verification on 18.04.2006. Applying Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, the limitation period commenced from the date when identity of offenders became known to the competent authority. The complaint dated 20.01.2009 was therefore within the three-year limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC for offences punishable up to three years.

Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, where identity of the offender is ascertained during investigation, the period of limitation commences from such date under Section 469(1)(c), not from the date of initial information.

---

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 202(1) — Mandatory inquiry where accused resides beyond territorial jurisdiction — Complaint by public servant — Harmonious construction with Section 200 proviso — Held, where complaint is filed by a public servant in discharge of official duties, the legislative scheme places such complainant on a distinct footing; non-holding of separate Section 202 inquiry does not ipso facto vitiate summoning order. (Paras 37–41)

The High Court had quashed the complaint on the ground that the Magistrate failed to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC since the accused resided beyond jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that Section 202 must be construed harmoniously with the proviso to Section 200 CrPC, which exempts examination of a public servant complainant. Relying on precedent, the Court held that complaints by public servants stand on a different pedestal and strict insistence on Section 202 inquiry in such cases is unwarranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions initiated by authorised public servants in discharge of official duties, failure to conduct a separate Section 202 CrPC inquiry does not automatically invalidate cognizance and summoning.

---

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 34 — Vicarious liability of Directors — Whether Director was ‘in charge of’ and ‘responsible to the company’ — Question of fact — Premature quashing impermissible. (Paras 56–59)

In the connected appeal relating to prosecution for ‘not of standard quality’ syringes, the High Court had quashed proceedings against Directors for insufficient averments under Section 34 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that whether Directors were in charge of and responsible for conduct of business is a matter for trial based on evidence. At the threshold, proceedings ought not to be quashed on such factual issues.

Ratio Decidendi: Determination of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act involves factual inquiry and cannot ordinarily be decided at the stage of quashing.

---

Limitation — Section 473 CrPC — Power to extend limitation — Observations of High Court regarding computation — Clarified. (Paras 32–36)

The Court clarified that the High Court erred in computing limitation from an earlier date under Section 469(1)(b) CrPC; rather, Section 469(1)(c) applied in the facts. However, subsequent developments rendered that issue academic.

Ratio Decidendi: Correct identification of the applicable limb of Section 469(1) CrPC is essential for computing limitation; where identity of offender is initially unknown, clause (c) governs.

---

Result — First Appeal (Panacea Biotec matter): Impugned High Court order quashing complaint set aside; summoning order restored; substitution permitted in view of death of Managing Director; fresh summons to issue. (Paras 43–44)**

Connected Appeal (Diary No. 18999 of 2023): Dismissed, for reasons recorded in principal appeal. (Paras 45–48)**

Connected Appeal (SLP (Crl.) No. 8867 of 2023): Impugned High Court judgment quashing proceedings on Section 202 and Section 34 grounds set aside; complaint restored; fresh summons to issue. (Paras 57–59)**

Clarification: Observations confined to issues decided; merits left open for trial; no order as to costs. (Para 60)**

Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135(1)(b)(i) — Dealing with smuggled goods — Conviction based on statements under Section 108 — Admissibility and evidentiary value — Held, statements recorded under Section 108 by authorized Customs Officers are admissible and can form substantive evidence if voluntary — Not hit by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act — Conviction upheld where corroborative material exists. (Paras 20–23) The appellants contended that conviction was founded solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that statements under Section 108, if voluntary, are admissible and constitute substantive evidence. The High Court had found that the statements were not shown to be obtained by coercion and that they led to recovery of incriminating articles and money documented by panchnamas, thereby providing corroboration. No perversity was found in concurrent findings of the courts below. Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible and may sustain conviction, particularly when corroborated by recoveries and other circumstantial evidence.

Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135(1)(b)(i) — Dealing with smuggled goods — Conviction based on statements under Section 108 — Admissibility and evidentiary value — Held, statements recorded under Section 108 by authorized Customs Officers are admissible and can form substantive evidence if voluntary — Not hit by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act — Conviction upheld where corroborative material exists. (Paras 20–23)

The appellants contended that conviction was founded solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that statements under Section 108, if voluntary, are admissible and constitute substantive evidence. The High Court had found that the statements were not shown to be obtained by coercion and that they led to recovery of incriminating articles and money documented by panchnamas, thereby providing corroboration. No perversity was found in concurrent findings of the courts below.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible and may sustain conviction, particularly when corroborated by recoveries and other circumstantial evidence.

---

Criminal Jurisprudence — Article 136 of the Constitution — Interference with concurrent findings — Scope — Held, where trial Court, appellate Court and High Court have concurrently affirmed conviction and no perversity or manifest illegality is shown, Supreme Court will not interfere with findings of guilt. (Paras 23–24)

The Court declined to reappreciate evidence under Article 136, noting that findings of guilt were based on proper evaluation of statutory provisions and evidence on record. The concurrent conclusions did not suffer from manifest error.

Ratio Decidendi: In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless demonstrated to be perverse or legally unsustainable.

---

Customs Offences — Sentencing — Section 135(1)(b)(i) proviso — Reduction of sentence — Long lapse of time — Advanced age — Period already undergone exceeding statutory minimum — Ends of justice. (Paras 24–28)

Though conviction was affirmed, the Court considered mitigating circumstances. The incident dated back to 1985; the recovery was from abandoned pits; several co-accused were acquitted; some appellants had passed away; surviving appellants were of advanced age; and approximately one year of incarceration had already been undergone, exceeding the statutory minimum of six months under the proviso to Section 135(1)(b)(i) as it then stood. In the totality of circumstances, further imprisonment was held unnecessary.

Ratio Decidendi: In exceptional circumstances involving protracted litigation, advanced age of accused, substantial incarceration already undergone, and passage of decades since offence, sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act may be reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining conviction.

---

Final Order: Conviction under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 affirmed. Sentence reduced to period already undergone. Appellants on bail; bail bonds discharged. Appeals partly allowed. (Paras 28–30)**

Service Law — Promotions in Kerala Technical Education Service — Effect of prior Supreme Court judgment — High Court cannot indirectly unsettle benefits granted by Supreme Court — Finality of judicial orders — Held, once promotions were granted in compliance with specific directions of Supreme Court and contempt petition disposed noting compliance, High Court could not pass directions adversely affecting such beneficiaries — Appeal allowed to limited extent. (Paras 13–15) The appellants had secured promotion pursuant to orders of this Court in earlier proceedings, including compliance recorded in contempt jurisdiction. The High Court, while deciding connected matters, issued directions which had the effect of prejudicially impacting the appellants’ promotional benefits though they were not parties before it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not revisit or disturb the finality attached to orders passed by this Court, particularly where such orders had attained finality and were acted upon. Ratio Decidendi: Benefits flowing from a final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be nullified or diluted by subsequent High Court directions in proceedings to which the beneficiaries were not parties.

Service Law — Promotions in Kerala Technical Education Service — Effect of prior Supreme Court judgment — High Court cannot indirectly unsettle benefits granted by Supreme Court — Finality of judicial orders — Held, once promotions were granted in compliance with specific directions of Supreme Court and contempt petition disposed noting compliance, High Court could not pass directions adversely affecting such beneficiaries — Appeal allowed to limited extent. (Paras 13–15)

The appellants had secured promotion pursuant to orders of this Court in earlier proceedings, including compliance recorded in contempt jurisdiction. The High Court, while deciding connected matters, issued directions which had the effect of prejudicially impacting the appellants’ promotional benefits though they were not parties before it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not revisit or disturb the finality attached to orders passed by this Court, particularly where such orders had attained finality and were acted upon.

Ratio Decidendi: Benefits flowing from a final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be nullified or diluted by subsequent High Court directions in proceedings to which the beneficiaries were not parties.

---

Service Rules — AICTE Regulations vis-à-vis State Rules framed under Article 309 — Repugnancy — Applicability — Issue not reopened qua appellants due to finality of earlier Supreme Court decision. (Paras 3–6, 9, 14–15)

While the High Court held that the State Rules would be void to the extent repugnant to AICTE Regulations and that Ph.D. qualification became mandatory after 05.03.2010, the Supreme Court clarified that such findings could not operate to the detriment of appellants whose cases stood concluded by prior judgments of this Court interpreting Rule 6A and AICTE notifications.

Ratio Decidendi: Even if a High Court correctly interprets regulatory supremacy in general, such interpretation cannot reopen or override rights crystallised under binding Supreme Court judgments.

---

Natural Justice — Persons not parties to earlier proceedings — Remedy available — Review or fresh proceedings before appropriate forum — Reliance on precedents. (Paras 16–20)

The Court addressed grievances of intervenors and petitioner in connected SLP who were not parties to earlier proceedings but claimed to be adversely affected by High Court judgment. Referring to established precedents, it reiterated that affected non-parties may seek appropriate remedies including review on limited grounds or approach the competent tribunal afresh, depending on statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: A person adversely affected by a judicial decision in proceedings to which he was not a party is not remediless; appropriate recourse lies in review on limited grounds or independent proceedings before the competent forum.

---

Finality of Litigation — Public Policy — Judicial discipline — High Court must respect binding directions of Supreme Court under Article 141. (Paras 14–15)

The Court emphasised that once it had granted relief to the appellants and compliance was recorded, judicial discipline required subordinate courts to honour such finality. Any contrary approach would undermine certainty in service jurisprudence and violate principles of finality.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial discipline mandates that High Courts cannot issue directions that effectively reopen or undermine rights conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.

---

Relief Granted: Appeal allowed to limited extent; clarified that nothing in impugned High Court judgment shall affect appellants’ career prospects in view of special facts. Connected SLP and intervention applications disposed of with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before competent forum. (Paras 15–20)**

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Bail in cases involving caste-based violence — Parameters — Gravity of offence and societal impact to be considered — Pendency of prior civil litigation not a mitigating circumstance at bail stage where it furnishes motive. (Paras 11, 25, 27, 31) The Court observed that the High Court treated pending civil litigation between the parties as a circumstance favouring bail. The Supreme Court held that such litigation could equally constitute motive for the assault. In a case involving allegations of caste-based insults and violence against a Scheduled Caste victim, the gravity of the offence and societal ramifications must be given due weight. Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving serious offences under the SC/ST Act coupled with murder, pendency of civil disputes cannot be treated as a mitigating factor for bail when it may provide motive for the crime. Medical Evidence — Stage of bail — Dissection of post-mortem findings impermissible — Multiple injuries including head trauma with cerebral damage — High Court erred in evaluating medical causation as if at final trial. (Paras 28–31) The post-mortem report recorded multiple injuries, including contusions and head injury leading to cerebral damage. The High Court’s reasoning that only eight injuries were caused by six accused and that nexus between injury and death required scrutiny at trial was held inappropriate at bail stage. Evaluation of medical causation and intention is a matter for trial. Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of bail, the Court ought not to undertake a meticulous dissection of medical evidence as if adjudicating guilt; existence of multiple injuries including head trauma is sufficient to weigh against grant of bail in a murder case.

Criminal Procedure — Grant of bail — Distinction between cancellation of bail and reversal of bail order — Scope of interference by superior Court — Held, where order granting bail ignores gravity of offence, relevant material and is founded on extraneous considerations, superior Court is justified in setting aside such order — Present case falls in category of reversal of perverse bail order, not mere cancellation for misuse of liberty. (Paras 20–22, 32)

The Court clarified that cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC (corresponding provision under BNSS) is distinct from interference with an unjustified bail order. While cancellation ordinarily requires misuse of liberty, a superior court may set aside a bail order if it suffers from perversity, ignores material evidence, or is based on irrelevant considerations. The High Court’s approach in granting bail in a case involving offences under Sections 302 IPC and the SC/ST Act was found legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An unreasoned or perverse bail order in a grave offence can be reversed by a superior Court even in absence of misuse of liberty by the accused.

---

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 IPC — Unlawful assembly — Stage of bail — Attribution of specific overt act — Held, once offences relating to unlawful assembly and common object are invoked, prosecution is not required at bail stage to attribute specific injury to each accused — High Court erred in granting bail on ground that individual role was not clearly fixed. (Paras 26–30)

The FIR alleged that six accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and launched a concerted assault using iron rods and sticks. The High Court granted bail on the reasoning that it could not be ascertained whose weapon caused the head injury. The Supreme Court held that such reasoning overlooks the settled principle that under Section 149 IPC, each member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for acts committed in prosecution of the common object. Individual attribution is not a sine qua non at the stage of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC, failure to attribute a specific fatal injury to a particular accused is not a valid ground for grant of bail at the threshold.

---

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Bail in cases involving caste-based violence — Parameters — Gravity of offence and societal impact to be considered — Pendency of prior civil litigation not a mitigating circumstance at bail stage where it furnishes motive. (Paras 11, 25, 27, 31)

The Court observed that the High Court treated pending civil litigation between the parties as a circumstance favouring bail. The Supreme Court held that such litigation could equally constitute motive for the assault. In a case involving allegations of caste-based insults and violence against a Scheduled Caste victim, the gravity of the offence and societal ramifications must be given due weight.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving serious offences under the SC/ST Act coupled with murder, pendency of civil disputes cannot be treated as a mitigating factor for bail when it may provide motive for the crime.

---

Medical Evidence — Stage of bail — Dissection of post-mortem findings impermissible — Multiple injuries including head trauma with cerebral damage — High Court erred in evaluating medical causation as if at final trial. (Paras 28–31)

The post-mortem report recorded multiple injuries, including contusions and head injury leading to cerebral damage. The High Court’s reasoning that only eight injuries were caused by six accused and that nexus between injury and death required scrutiny at trial was held inappropriate at bail stage. Evaluation of medical causation and intention is a matter for trial.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of bail, the Court ought not to undertake a meticulous dissection of medical evidence as if adjudicating guilt; existence of multiple injuries including head trauma is sufficient to weigh against grant of bail in a murder case.

---

Bail — Gravity of offence — Murder coupled with caste-based abuse — Public confidence in justice system — Held, superficial consideration of bail parameters in grave crimes undermines administration of justice — Bail cancelled. (Paras 21–22, 31–32)

Relying on settled principles, the Court reiterated that in heinous offences affecting societal conscience, courts must exercise caution in granting bail. The High Court’s order was found to have inadequately considered the gravity of the offence, role attributed to accused, and seriousness of allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving heinous offences such as murder with caste-based violence, bail must not be granted on superficial or speculative reasoning; orders ignoring gravity and material evidence are liable to be set aside.

---

Final Order: Appeal allowed. Impugned bail order set aside. Bail granted to respondents-accused cancelled. Accused directed to surrender within four weeks. Trial directed to be concluded within one year. Observations confined to bail adjudication and not to influence trial. (Paras 32–34)**

Evidence — Post-mortem report admitted by defence — Non-examination of doctor — Evidentiary value — Held, where genuineness of post-mortem report is admitted under Section 294 CrPC, the report constitutes substantive evidence and absence of oral testimony of medical officer does not weaken prosecution case. (Paras 52, 63–64) The defence admitted the post-mortem report (Exh.P/8), and consequently the doctor was not examined. The Court held that once genuineness is admitted, the contents stand proved and may be relied upon substantively. There was no suggestion of any intervening cause of death. The medical findings were corroborated by ocular evidence. Ratio Decidendi: Admission of post-mortem report under Section 294 CrPC dispenses with formal proof; non-examination of the medical officer does not create infirmity where the report stands admitted and corroborated.

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 299, 300, 302, 304 Part II — Distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder — Application of Clause (3) of Section 300 — Repeated lathi blows on vital part (head) causing bone-deep lacerations, skull fracture and brain damage — Held, intention to inflict bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death established — Case falls within Section 300 Thirdly — Conviction under Section 302 IPC restored. (Paras 53, 56–63, 70)

The Court reiterated the structured approach for determining whether an offence amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Upon proof that death was homicidal and attributable to acts of the accused, the decisive inquiry was whether the case fell within any clause of Section 300 IPC. The deceased sustained 29 injuries, including multiple bone-deep lacerated wounds on the parietal and temporal regions with skull fracture and intracranial haemorrhage. The multiplicity, situs and severity of injuries on a vital part, inflicted by members of an unlawful assembly lying in wait, demonstrated intention to inflict the very injury found to be present, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The High Court erred in treating the fatal injury as solitary and in downgrading the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where members of an unlawful assembly deliberately inflict repeated bone-deep injuries on the head, resulting in skull fracture and brain damage, the case squarely falls within Section 300 Thirdly IPC, irrespective of absence of explicit intention to kill.

---

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 149 — Unlawful assembly — Vicarious liability — Identity of person inflicting fatal injury immaterial — Once common object to commit murder established, every member liable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. (Paras 43, 65–67, 69)

The existence of an unlawful assembly and participation of the accused stood concluded. The High Court’s reasoning that since the prosecution failed to establish which accused caused the fatal injury, conviction under Section 302/149 IPC was unsafe, was held legally unsustainable. Section 149 IPC embodies the principle of constructive liability. Once it is shown that the offence was committed in prosecution of the common object, individual attribution of the fatal blow becomes irrelevant.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases attracting Section 149 IPC, proof of the common object and participation in the unlawful assembly is sufficient to fasten liability for murder; specific attribution of the fatal injury is not necessary.

---

Evidence — Post-mortem report admitted by defence — Non-examination of doctor — Evidentiary value — Held, where genuineness of post-mortem report is admitted under Section 294 CrPC, the report constitutes substantive evidence and absence of oral testimony of medical officer does not weaken prosecution case. (Paras 52, 63–64)

The defence admitted the post-mortem report (Exh.P/8), and consequently the doctor was not examined. The Court held that once genuineness is admitted, the contents stand proved and may be relied upon substantively. There was no suggestion of any intervening cause of death. The medical findings were corroborated by ocular evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of post-mortem report under Section 294 CrPC dispenses with formal proof; non-examination of the medical officer does not create infirmity where the report stands admitted and corroborated.

---

Penal Law — Intention — Determination from surrounding circumstances — Premeditation — Road blockade, prior motive, concerted assault with lathis — No sudden provocation — No exception to Section 300 attracted. (Paras 58–60, 62)

The accused lay in wait after deliberately blocking the road by placing tube-well pipes, armed with lathis. The deceased had earlier intervened in a dispute involving the accused, furnishing motive. The assault was retaliatory and pre-planned, not the result of a sudden quarrel. Repeated blows were directed at the head. No Exception to Section 300 IPC was attracted.

Ratio Decidendi: Premeditated obstruction of victim’s passage followed by a coordinated assault with repeated blows on a vital part establishes requisite intention under Section 300 Thirdly IPC and rules out application of Exceptions.

---

Appellate Interference — High Court downgrading conviction from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II/149 IPC — Perverse appreciation of medical evidence — Held, finding that only one injury caused death contrary to record — Conviction and life sentence restored. (Paras 61, 68–71)

The High Court’s conclusion that death resulted from a solitary injury and not cumulative assault was found contrary to medical evidence indicating multiple bone-deep head injuries. Its approach was self-contradictory in affirming unlawful assembly while negating liability under Section 302/149 IPC. The Supreme Court restored the trial Court’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate alteration of conviction from murder to culpable homicide is impermissible where medical and ocular evidence clearly establish injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and common object under Section 149 IPC stands proved.

---

Result: Appeals allowed. Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment restored. Accused directed to surrender within eight weeks. (Paras 71–72)**