Sessions Court Cannot Take Cognisance Of Offences Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act Without Committal By Magistrate: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a Sessions Court cannot take direct cognisance of offences under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act unless the case is committed to it by a Magistrate, as required under Section 193 of the CrPC. The Court observed that in the absence of any express provision in the Act permitting such direct cognisance, the statutory procedure under the CrPC must be followed.

Justice N.J. Jamadar was hearing a writ petition filed by a pharmaceutical firm and its partners seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated for an offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The prosecution arose from a sample drawn in 2016 by a Drugs Inspector from a government hospital store, which was later reported to be “not of standard quality,” leading to a sanction and filing of a complaint before the Special Judge at Silvassa, who directly issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the Special Judge, being a Sessions Court, could not have taken direct cognisance of the offence without committal by a Magistrate.

The Court noted serious procedural infirmities in the prosecution. It held that there was an inordinate delay in testing the sample in violation of Rule 45 of the Drugs Rules, 1945, and that the failure to send a portion of the sample to the manufacturer deprived the petitioners of their valuable right to seek reanalysis. Further, by the time the complaint was filed, the shelf life of the drug had expired, rendering any such right illusory. The Court observed that these cumulative lapses resulted in the denial of a valuable statutory right and rendered the continuation of prosecution an abuse of process.

The High Court examined the statutory scheme under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted that while Section 32(2) of the Act mandates that offences under Chapter IV be tried by a Court not inferior to a Court of Session, there is no provision in the Act expressly permitting a Sessions Court to take cognisance directly. In such a situation, the bar under Section 193 CrPC applies, requiring committal by a Magistrate before the Sessions Court can assume jurisdiction.

“Evidently, though sub-Section (2) of Section 32 begins with an inbuilt saving clause in the form of expression, 'save as otherwise provided in this Act,' yet, there is no provision in the Drugs Act 1940 which expressly provides for the Court of Session taking the cognisance of the offence punishable under the said Act directly,” the Court observed.

Rejecting the respondent's reliance on a notification designating a Special Court, the Court held that such a designation does not override the requirement of committal, particularly when the offence in question did not fall within the category of offences for which special courts were empowered to take direct cognisance.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order issuing process, and set aside the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Special Court.

Case Title: M/s. C.B. Healthcare & Ors. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 2777 of 2024]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)144

Click Here To Read/Download Order