At the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty on Friday (26 September 2025) delivered a significant order in a criminal petition filed by a Haveri-based pharma businessman. The petitioner, Vishwanath Kadli, sought to quash proceedings against him for allegedly supplying allopathic drugs to an unlicensed medical practitioner. The Court, however, dismissed his plea, holding that the prosecution was validly instituted.
Background
The case traces back to a private complaint filed by the Assistant Drugs Controller of Gadag Circle. Authorities alleged that one Siddappa Channabasappa Nekar, who was not a registered medical practitioner, was running a clinic named Sanjeevani Clinic in Laxmeshwar, Gadag district. Despite not holding the required license to stock or sell medicines, Nekar was said to be dispensing drugs to patients.
According to the complaint, these drugs were supplied by Vishwanath Kadli, proprietor of M/s Kadli Pharma, based in Haveri. Kadli did hold Form 20B and Form 21B licenses, but under those licenses, medicines could only be sold to persons holding valid drug licenses. The allegation was that he violated this condition, thus exposing him to criminal liability under Sections 18(A)(vi) and 27(D) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Court's Observations
The defense strongly argued that the case was barred by limitation since the punishment prescribed for the offences was not beyond two years. Kadli’s counsel also claimed that the Assistant Drugs Controller who filed the complaint was not empowered to do so in Gadag district, as the Gazette notification appointing him as an Inspector was only for Shivamogga Circle.
Justice Shetty, however, disagreed. Referring to precedents including Bharat Damodar Kale vs. State of A.P. and State of Maharashtra vs. Ghanshyam Zaveri, the Court clarified that once an officer has been appointed as an Inspector under Section 21 of the Act, his authority continues when he is transferred.
"Issuance of fresh notification every time an officer is transferred is not practicable. A narrow interpretation would defeat the object of the Act," the bench observed.
On the limitation argument, the Court noted that since the case involved offences against both accused - one of which carried a punishment up to five years - provisions of limitation under Section 468 CrPC would not apply.
Kadli’s counsel had further argued that only a Sessions Court could directly entertain such complaints under Section 32 of the Act. The Court clarified this point, saying:
"Though Section 32 provides that no court inferior to that of a Sessions Court shall try such offences, it does not mean that the Sessions Court can take cognizance without committal. The Magistrate is required to commit the case, which has been done here."
Decision
After weighing the arguments, Justice Shetty held that the complaint was filed by a competent officer, the procedure followed by the Magistrate was lawful, and there was no bar of limitation. Consequently, the petition to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed.
The order means that Kadli, along with the unlicensed practitioner Nekar, will now have to face trial before the Sessions Court for allegedly violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Case Title: Vishwanath S/o Doddabasappa Kadli vs. The State of Karnataka
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 103433 of 2024
Date of Order: 26th September, 2025