Roxithromycin NSQ Case: Telangana HC Slams CDSCO for 'Mindless' Prosecution, Imposes Rs 50,000 Cost

Telangana: In a sharp rebuke underscoring the need for accountability in regulatory action, Justice Jukanti Anil Kumar of the Telangana High Court imposed Rs 50,000 in costs on officials of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) for mechanically prosecuting a retired Hindustan Antibiotics Limited executive in a substandard drug case, despite clear evidence that he had retired before the batch in question was manufactured, an approach the Court termed illogical, an abuse of legal process, and a violation of personal liberty under Article 21, while warning authorities against the careless invocation of criminal law.

According to the recent news reported by Telangana Today, the decision came while hearing a criminal petition filed by A.K. Gupta, a former Zonal Manager of Hindustan Antibiotics Limited. The case originated from a complaint filed by drug authorities in March 2012, alleging that certain medicines supplied to the South Central Railway Hospital in Lalaguda were substandard.

At the center of the matter were samples of Roxithromycin Tablets IP 150 mg, collected in 2010 and later declared “not of standard quality” by the Central Drugs Laboratory in Kolkata. Based on this finding, authorities initiated legal proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

However, the Court identified a critical discrepancy: the drug batch had been manufactured in March 2009, whereas the petitioner had already retired on January 31, 2009. Despite this timeline, he was named as Accused No. 1 in the case.

Justice Jukanti noted that attributing criminal liability to someone who had no involvement at the relevant time was illogical and indicated a clear lack of proper application of mind, reports Telangana Today.

The Court observed that launching prosecution without concrete evidence amounts to misuse of the legal process and unnecessarily affects an individual’s personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court further emphasized that authorities entrusted with statutory powers must exercise them carefully and responsibly, rather than acting mechanically. It also made it clear that such casual actions by officials in responsible positions cannot be endorsed.

Taking into account the undue hardship caused to the petitioner, the Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the concerned officials, directing payment within four weeks as both compensation and a warning against similar lapses in the future.