Safiya Malik

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty dismissed a petition seeking to quash proceedings against a licensed pharmacist accused of supplying drugs to an unregistered practitioner in violation of licence conditions, attracting offences under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court clarified that it would be unreasonable to require a fresh notification under Section 21 of the Act whenever an Inspector is transferred, noting that Section 21(1) empowers the Central or State Government to appoint qualified persons as Inspectors by Gazette notification for designated areas. The Court upheld the complaint’s validity and its committal to the Sessions Court under Section 32.

The case arose from a private complaint filed by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Gadag Circle, against a licensed pharmacist and a local practitioner. The complaint alleged that the practitioner was running a clinic in Laxmeshwar without being a registered medical practitioner and without holding the requisite licence to sell or stock allopathic drugs. It was alleged that he procured such drugs from the petitioner, the proprietor of a licensed pharmacy in Haveri, who held Form 20B and Form 21B licences issued by the Drugs Control authority. The complaint stated that the petitioner supplied drugs to the unlicensed practitioner in violation of the conditions of his licence, which restrict sales to authorised persons only.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Criminal Complaints in Matrimonial Disputes Require Careful Scrutiny | Quashes Dowry Harassment Case Against Brother-in-Law

The Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, in respect of the petitioner and under Sections 18(c) and 27(b)(ii) against the practitioner, and issued summons. The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was filed by an officer not competent under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He argued that no fresh notification under Section 21(1) appointing the complainant as Inspector for Gadag Circle was issued after the officer’s transfer there, and further that the complaint ought to have been initiated before the Sessions Court as required under Section 32 of the Act.

The State contended that the complainant’s original appointment as Inspector under Section 21(1) remained valid despite transfer and that the proceedings were properly instituted and subsequently committed by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court. The High Court considered the statutory provisions and precedents and rejected the petitioner’s objections, upholding the continuation of the proceedings.

The Court observed that “period of limitation is provided under the said Section only for the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term upto three years” and that under Section 468(3) Cr.P.C., “the period of limitation in relation to the offences, which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence, which is punishable with the most severe punishment.” Since offences against Accused No.1 carried punishment up to five years, “Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is therefore, not applicable to the present case.”

On the issue of the complainant’s authority, the Court referred to Section 21 of the Act and held that “issuance of notification as provided under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940, on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred is not at all practicable and if such a narrow interpretation is made, the same would be unreasonable and not in furtherance of the object of the Act.” The Court cited the Bombay High Court’s decision in Ghanshyam K. Zaveri (2000) and the Supreme Court’s judgement in Bharat Damodar Kale (2003), recording that “giving a narrow interpretation confining the operation of the notification to a part of [a State] would defeat the public purpose for which this notification is issued.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court | PTCL Act May Be Invoked Again If Granted Land Is Transferred After Earlier Restoration | Writ Petition Dismissed

With respect to jurisdiction, the Court examined Section 32 of the Act and Section 193 of Cr.P.C. It stated, “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.” Relying on M/s. Padma Pharmaceuticals v. State (2025), the Court reiterated that a Magistrate is competent to entertain the complaint and commit it to Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

The Court recorded that the Magistrate in the present case had already committed the matter to the Sessions Court on 26.05.2024 and therefore “there is no illegality or irregularity in the procedure followed.”

The Court stated, “I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.” The Court upheld the competence of the complainant as Inspector, rejected the plea of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., and confirmed that the Magistrate had acted within jurisdiction by committing the case to the Sessions Court. No relief was granted to the petitioner.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Sunil S. Desai, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, High Court Government Pleader

Case Title: Vishwanath S/o Doddabasappa Kadli v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC-D:13469
Case Number: Crl.P. No. 103433 of 2024
Bench: Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty