‘Public Servant Complaints Different’: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Sections 200 & 202 CrPC

The Supreme Court of India has said that public servants acting in their official capacity stand on a different footing compared to private individuals when they file complaints.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S V N Bhatti allowed an appeal filed by the Kerala government against a July 14, 2022 order of the Kerala High Court, which had quashed the complaint against the accused.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a drug inspector before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Thrissur against Panacea Biotech Ltd and another. The allegation was that there was a discrepancy between the label on the carton and the label on the vial of a drug manufactured and sold by the company, amounting to offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The high court had quashed the complaint on the ground that the accused were located outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and that the Magistrate had not conducted a mandatory enquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 225 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) before issuing summons.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that such an enquiry under Section 202 should not be treated as mandatory in cases where the complaint is filed by a public servant acting in an official capacity. It was also submitted that the complainant should not suffer due to any omission on the part of the magistrate, and that the accused should not benefit from such a lapse. The State emphasised that the alleged offence involved misbranding of drugs, which could affect unsuspecting consumers.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that the magistrate could not have issued summons without first conducting the enquiry required under Section 202. They contended that compliance with this provision is essential, regardless of whether the complainant is a public servant.

Court noted that the drug inspector who filed the complaint fulfilled the legal requirements under Section 32 of the Act to act as a complainant.

On the question of limitation, the bench said the time limit would begin from the date when the identity of the accused became known to the competent authority. It held that in this case, the limitation period would expire only on April 17, 2009, and therefore, the complaint was within time.

Importantly, Court clarified that under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (corresponding to Section 223 of BNSS), a Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant or witnesses when the complaint is filed by a public servant acting in the discharge of official duties. In this case, the complaint had been filed with due authorisation from the State government.

Setting aside the high court’s order, the Supreme Court held that the issuance of summons against the accused was valid in law.

Case Title: The State of Kerala & Anr. vs. M/s. Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Anr. with connected matters

Judgment Date: February 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S V N Bhatti