The Supreme Court has held that offences relating to the manufacture and sale of drugs under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 cannot be tried by a Magistrate. Such offences must be tried by a Court not inferior to a Court of Session, because Section 32(2) expressly bars any court below the Sessions Court from trying them.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi relied on Section 32(2) and noted that it clearly mandates Sessions Court trial for offences punishable under Chapter IV.
The Court, however, refused to quash proceedings against M/s SBS Biotech and its partners. It held that the complaint was filed within limitation and that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction.
Background
The case arose from an inspection on July 22, 2014, at the manufacturing premises of M/s SBS Biotech at Kala Amb, District Sirmaur (Himachal Pradesh).
According to the Drug Inspector:
- The firm did not maintain records in the manner required under Schedule M and Schedule U of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
- The alleged lapses related especially to Pseudoephedrine (a habit-forming drug).
A re-inspection followed on August 5, 2014. The prosecution alleged that the firm still did not furnish complete records. It also alleged discrepancies in manufacturing, testing, and distribution records.
Proceedings So Far
- The authorities granted sanction for prosecution on September 15, 2016.
- The prosecution filed a complaint on February 27, 2017.
- The JMFC took cognizance on April 6, 2017.
- The Magistrate later committed the matter to the Special Judge on October 5, 2017, noting that the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
- The High Court dismissed the quashing petition. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
What The Accused Argued
The appellants said the allegations mainly concerned record-keeping. They argued that:
- The matter falls under Section 18-B (maintenance of records/furnishing information).
- The punishment would then be under Section 28-A, with a maximum sentence of one year.
- Because the complaint came more than two and a half years after inspection, it should be time-barred.
They also argued that:
- Section 18 deals with manufacture and sale, not record maintenance.
- So, the prosecution should not have invoked Section 27(d).
On jurisdiction, they relied on Section 36-A, claiming:
- Offences with imprisonment up to three years (and not triable by Special Court under Section 36-AB) should be tried by a JMFC.
- So, the committal to Sessions Court was incorrect.
What The State Said
The State opposed the appeal and said the allegations went beyond record defects. It alleged serious irregularities, including:
- tampering/manipulation of records, and
- violations connected to manufacturing and testing.
The State argued that the allegations attracted Section 18(a)(vi) (contravention of Chapter IV/Rules), punishable under Section 27(d).
Supreme Court’s Findings
1) Limitation
The Court noted that the complaint specifically alleged contravention of Section 18(a)(vi). It also recorded allegations of misuse and manipulation, along with record failures under Schedule M and U.
Because the prosecution invoked Section 27(d), the punishment runs from not less than one year up to two years. That punishment attracts a three-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC.
The complaint came within about two years and six months, so it was within limitation.
2) Jurisdiction
The Court rejected the argument that a Magistrate could try it under Section 36-A. It explained that Section 36-A allows summary trial by JMFC only when the offence is not triable by a Special Court or a Sessions Court.
Here, Section 32(2) controls. It requires trial by a court not inferior to a Court of Session for offences punishable under Chapter IV. Because of that bar, Section 36-A cannot shift jurisdiction to a Magistrate.
The Court upheld the committal to the Sessions Court and found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s refusal to quash.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held:
- Magistrates cannot try Chapter IV offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
- Sessions Court must try such offences, as mandated by Section 32(2).
- The complaint was not time-barred.
Case Title: M/s SBS Biotech & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh
