Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), in a significant order delivered by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, dismissed a petition seeking to quash proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against a licensed dealer accused of selling drugs to an unregistered medical practitioner in violation of licence conditions.
The Court held that public health laws must be interpreted in a manner that furthers their purpose, and minor technical objections cannot shield violators from accountability. Observing that the Drugs Act aims to protect the public from the dangers of unregulated medical practice, the Court stated:
“A narrow interpretation of regulatory provisions would defeat the public purpose underlying the Act. Enforcement of public health laws cannot be thwarted by technical objections relating to notification or limitation.”
Accordingly, the Court upheld the proceedings pending before the Sessions Court and ruled that both the complaint and the prosecution were legally maintainable.
Facts
The complaint was initiated by the Assistant Drugs Controller, Gadag Circle, who filed a private complaint against an unregistered medical practitioner (Accused No.1) and the petitioner (Accused No.2), proprietor of a licensed pharmacy in Haveri.
It was alleged that Accused No.1 was running a clinic under the name “Sanjeevani Clinic” without possessing a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, and that he was dispensing allopathic drugs purchased from the petitioner. The petitioner, despite holding Form 20-B and 21-B licences, was alleged to have supplied drugs to an unlicensed person, thereby violating the conditions of his licence under Rule 65(3)(ii).
Following the complaint, the Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act and issued summons to both accused. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) seeking to quash the proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the complaint filed by the Assistant Drugs Controller was maintainable in the absence of a fresh notification under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, following his transfer from another circle.
- Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Whether the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the complaint under Section 32 of the Act before committal to the Sessions Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the complaint was barred by limitation, as the maximum punishment under Section 27(d) is only two years’ imprisonment, attracting Section 468 CrPC. Further, it was argued that the complainant was not authorized under Section 21 of the Act since his gazette notification of appointment was confined to Shivamogga Circle, and no fresh notification was issued after his transfer to Gadag Circle.
The petitioner also argued that only a Court of Sessions could take cognizance of offences under the Act in view of Section 32(2), and therefore, the Magistrate’s cognizance was without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on:
- State of Maharashtra v. R.A. Chandawarkar (1999 2 Mh.L.J 650);
- Marc Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India (2019 SCC OnLine HP 2825);
- S.A. Kishore v. State by Drug Inspector (Karnataka HC, 2013); and
- Miteshbhai J. Patel v. Drug Inspector (SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3662-63/2024, SC).
Respondent’s Arguments
The State contended that the complaint was not barred by limitation, as the offences against Accused No.1 were punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment, and since both accused were being tried jointly, Section 468(3) CrPC applied — the limitation period must be determined with reference to the most severe offence.
It further argued that the Assistant Drugs Controller was duly appointed under Section 21, and under sub-section (2), transfer to another circle did not require a new gazette notification. The earlier notification continued to confer powers throughout the State.
The State also emphasized that Section 32(2) only prescribes that offences shall be tried by the Sessions Court, not that cognizance must be taken directly by it. The Magistrate is competent to take cognizance and commit the case under Section 193 CrPC. The prosecution, it argued, was therefore valid.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Sections 21 and 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, emphasizing that these provisions must be read in the light of public purpose. It noted that Section 21(1) permits appointment of Inspectors by Gazette notification, while sub-section (2) covers powers and duties assigned across areas. Therefore, the transfer of an already-appointed Inspector does not necessitate a new gazette notification.
Quoting from the Bombay High Court’s ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Ghanshyam K. Zaveri (2000 SCC OnLine Bom 748), the Court reiterated that once a person is notified as Inspector, subsequent postings fall under Section 21(2), and:
“Issuance of fresh notification on each transfer is impracticable and not mandated by law.”
The Court also relied on Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559, where the Supreme Court cautioned against narrow interpretation of regulatory notifications that would frustrate public health objectives.
Precedent Analysis
- Ghanshyam K. Zaveri (2000) – Clarified that Inspectors need not be re-notified on transfer; subsequent orders suffice under Section 21(2).
- Bharat Damodar Kale (2003) – Held that enforcement notifications under public health laws must be interpreted broadly to fulfil legislative purpose.
- Padma Pharmaceuticals v. State (2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 75) – Karnataka HC held that while offences must be tried by Sessions Courts, Magistrates can take cognizance and commit cases under Section 193 CrPC.
These precedents together reinforced the High Court’s view that the complaint and procedure adopted were legally sound.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Shetty reasoned that:
- Since Accused No.1’s offence under Section 27(b)(ii) is punishable up to five years, the limitation plea under Section 468 CrPC fails.
- The Assistant Drugs Controller’s prior notification under Section 21 for Shivamogga Circle continued to operate after his transfer to Gadag Circle by virtue of Section 21(2); requiring re-notification would “defeat administrative efficiency and frustrate the Act’s objectives.”
- The Magistrate’s role in taking cognizance and committing the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC was proper and consistent with Section 32(2).
Emphasizing purposive interpretation, the Court stated:
“If every transfer required a new notification, drug enforcement would be paralysed. The law must be interpreted to ensure effective regulation, not administrative stagnation.”
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the prosecution under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It confirmed that:
- The complaint was validly instituted by a competent Inspector.
- The proceedings were not barred by limitation.
- The Magistrate rightly took cognizance and committed the case to the Sessions Court.
Accordingly, no ground for interference under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS was made out.
Implications
- Affirms that drug law enforcement officers retain authority after transfer without need for fresh gazette notifications.
- Reinforces Magistrate’s procedural competence to take cognizance before committal.
- Clarifies that Section 468 CrPC does not apply when offences tried together include one punishable beyond three years.
- Strengthens public health enforcement by curbing technical defences in regulatory prosecutions.
