Offences Under Drugs And Cosmetics Act Carrying a Maximum Punishment Of 3 years Triable By Specially Empowered Magistrate: J&K&L High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act carrying a maximum punishment of three years fall within the jurisdiction of a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class specially authorized by the Government. The Court addressed a challenge to criminal proceedings arising from allegations that a manufactured drug sample was found not to meet prescribed quality standards. It observed that the manufacturer had been provided the requisite sample portion and that the Magistrate had properly examined the complaint before issuing process. Concluding that no procedural or statutory defect was established, the Court declined to interfere and allowed the prosecution to proceed.
The proceedings began with a complaint filed by the Drugs Officer, Anantnag, alleging that a sample of an injection manufactured by the petitioner was lifted from a distributor’s premises and sent to the Government Analyst for testing. The Analyst reported that the sample was not of standard quality. Copies of the test report were then forwarded along the distribution chain, with each entity identifying its supplier until the trail reached the petitioner, identified as the manufacturer.
Also Read: Provident Fund Dues Supersede Secured Creditor’s Claims Under SARFAESI Act: Supreme Court
A portion of the sample and the Analyst’s report were sent to the petitioner under Section 25(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioner responded, asserting that the drug met the prescribed standards. The complaint was thereafter placed before the competent authority, which granted sanction for prosecution.
The Magistrate took cognizance and issued process against the accused. The case was later transferred between courts. Upon the petitioner’s request before the Sessions Judge, the drug sample was re-tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory, which again found it not to be of standard quality. The Chief Judicial Magistrate subsequently issued a fresh cognizance order after examining the allegations.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings, raising issues concerning the trial court’s jurisdiction under Sections 32 and 36-A of the Act, alleged non-compliance with Section 23(4) regarding supply of the sample portion, and the sufficiency of the Magistrate’s cognizance order.
The Court recorded that the petitioner was facing prosecution for an offence punishable with a term “less than one year but which may extend to two years with fine not less than twenty thousand rupees.” It observed that Section 36-A permits such offences to be tried summarily by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class specially empowered by the State Government.
The Court stated that Section 36-A covers offences “punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years,” and hence the trial could proceed before an empowered Magistrate despite the offence falling under Chapter IV. It noted that Section 32 applies only where the Act does not provide otherwise, observing that “Section 32 of the Act will govern a situation which is not otherwise provided for in the Act.”
Referring to the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, the Court recorded that the Sessions Judge had already examined SRO 44 of 2006, which “empowers all the Judicial Magistrates of the State to try the offences in exercise of powers under Section 36-A of the Act.”
On the issue of the sample portion, the Court stated that the complaint itself indicated that “a portion of the sample was furnished to the petitioner in terms of communication dated 25.06.2012.” The Court further noted that the petitioner had responded through its letters dated 20.07.2012 and 23.07.2012 asserting the drug was of standard quality, and had also applied for re-testing, which resulted in the sample again being reported as not of standard quality. The Court recorded: “The contention of the petitioner that portion of the sample was not furnished to it is factually incorrect.”
Regarding the challenge to the cognizance order, the Court observed that while the initial order of the Mobile Magistrate was cryptic, the later order by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, dated 17.10.2015, was passed after application of mind. It stated that the Magistrate had “after noticing the allegations made in the complaint and applying his mind to the same, recorded that prima facie offences under Section 18(a)(i) of the Act are made out against the accused.”
The Court concluded that the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction, non-supply of sample, and mechanical cognizance were without merit.
The Court directed: “For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated with immediate effect.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aatir J. Kawoosa, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG
Case Title: M/S Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. UT of J&K
Case Number: CRM(M) No.509/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
