Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Charges Against GlaxoSmithKline In Alleged Vaccine Pricing Violations Case

The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside charges framed against GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd and its former Assistant Logistics Manager, K.K. Palan.

The case concerns alleged violations of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 relating to vaccine price markings and failure to furnish prescribed price lists to medical stores.

Justice Rajesh Rai K observed that the Magistrate had committed a material irregularity by framing charges without first recording prosecution evidence thereby depriving the accused of their statutory right to seek discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"The accused is also entitled to seek discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. before the charges are framed. In the present case, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioners without first recording the prosecution evidence, thereby depriving them of their statutory right to seek discharge. Hence, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate suffers from a material irregularity.", the Court said. 

The case arose from a July 21, 2003 inspection during which vaccines supplied by GlaxoSmithKline were allegedly found without prescribed price markings, and the company was accused of failing to furnish price lists to medical stores. A complaint was filed against the company and its then Assistant Logistics Manager, K.K. Palan, under the Essential Commodities Act for violations of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995.

After the Sessions Court remanded the matter on July 23, 2016, the Magistrate framed charges against the company and Palan on December 17, 2019 without recording prosecution evidence. Subsequent proceedings to adopt the complainant's earlier examination in chief were set aside by the High Court which directed fresh examination of the witness on November 10, 2022.

Explaining that in a warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, the Magistrate must record prosecution evidence before deciding whether charges should be framed, the Court observed that an accused must also be afforded an opportunity to seek discharge under Section 245 CrPC.

The Court further noted that the seized medicines could not be traced in the trial court's property room. A report submitted on October 14, 2026, following an inspection conducted on October 8, confirmed their non availability.

It observed that the seized samples constituted primary physical evidence and their absence could have a significant bearing on the prosecution case, an aspect requiring consideration by the Magistrate.

"Therefore, the non-availability of the material objects and its consequential impact on the prosecution case are matters of considerable significance, which cannot be overlooked. However, these aspects of the matter has to be considered by the learned Magistrate."

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the charges framed on December 17, 2019, and remitted the matter to the Magistrate to proceed afresh from the stage of recording prosecution evidence. It also granted the accused liberty to seek discharge.

For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, Advocates Mrinal Shankar, Dharma Tej Koneru, Abhay Shetty and Hanumantharaya C.H.

For the Respondent: High Court Government Pleader Mahesha P.