Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Only Sessions Court Can Try Offences Punishable Under Chapter IV On Manufacture, Sale And Distribution: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has held that trial in a case registered for offences pertaining to manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs and cosmetics under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is triable only by a sessions court and the magistrate court is required to commit the case to the Sessions Judge for trial.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty held thus while allowing a petition filed by Padma Pharmaceuticals and its partner and set aside the conviction order passed against them under Section 27(b)(ii) (sale, manufacture etc., of any drug which doesn't have a valid license is punishable with imprisonment between three to five years with fine not be less than Rs. 1 Lakh or three times the value of the drug whichever is more) of the Act.

The court noted that Section 27(b)(ii) falls under Chapter IV of the Act which provides for manufacture, sale and distribution of drugs and cosmetics.

It referred to Section 32 of the Act and noted that "prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act", shall be instituted only by persons as mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 32(1) of the Act–i.e., an Inspector, any authorised Central or State government gazetted officer, the aggrieved person, or a recognised consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not.

The court thereafter noted that Section 32(2) provides that "no court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter".

The court further said, “Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act which provides that no court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try the offence punishable under Chapter-IV, does not provide that the Court of Sessions can directly take cognizance of the complaint without there being an order of committal by the Court of Magistrate.”

The court then said “The complaint filed by a competent officer as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act before the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate is required to be committed to the Court of jurisdictional Sessions Judge for trial as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act.”

The petitioner who were prosecuted based on a private complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, contended that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below is one without jurisdiction. Moreover, the oral and documentary evidence was not properly appreciated by the courts below.

The prosecution opposed the plea submitting that petitioners did not have a license and the prosecution has proved that after expiry of the license, petitioners had sold the drugs.

Findings:

The court noted that in the present case, the private complaint has been filed by the Inspector of Drugs who was been duly authorized, and therefore, prosecution has been initiated against the petitioners in compliance of the requirement of Section 32(1). The court also noted that Section 36AB of the Act provides for Special Courts for conducting the trial of offences under the provisions of the Act. Section 36AD of the Act provides that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be applicable to the proceedings before the Special Court

Following which it held “In the present case, the learned Magistrate himself has tried the accused persons for the alleged offence and has passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, which is not permissible.”

The high court ruled that the appellate court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in confirming the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate court.

"Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the courts below cannot be sustained,” the court said. 

Allowing the petition the high court set aside the conviction order and acquitted the accused.

Appearance: Advocate Mahadev S Patil for Petitioner.

HCGP Veeranagouda Malipatil for Respondent

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Case Title: M/s Padma Pharmaceuticals & ANR AND State Through Drug Inspector.

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200077 OF 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order