J&K&L High Court Quashes Drugs Case After Shelf Life Of Sample Expired, Says Accused's Right To Seek Re-Analysis Cannot Be Frustrated

A bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasised that the scheme of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act provides an accused with a valuable statutory safeguard to contest the report of the Government Analyst by seeking analysis of the sample through the Central Drugs Laboratory. The Court observed that where delay attributable to the prosecution renders this statutory right illusory, continuation of criminal proceedings would be legally unsustainable.

The Court was hearing a petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in relation to a drug sample alleged to be “not of standard quality,” where the accused contended that the delay in launching prosecution resulted in expiry of the shelf life of the drug sample, thereby frustrating the statutory right of re-analysis.

Background:

The petitioner, Managing Director of Jacksons Laboratories Private Limited, approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama.

The proceedings arose out of a complaint filed by the Drug Inspector, under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 alleging that the drug sample collected during inspection was found to be “not of standard quality.” Under Section 18(a)(i) of the Act, manufacture or sale of drugs that are not of standard quality is prohibited, and violation of the provision attracts penal consequences under Section 28.

The complaint was filed against several accused including the petitioner, who was arrayed as Managing Director of the manufacturing company. The trial court, by order took cognizance of the alleged offence and issued process against the accused.

The petitioner challenged the complaint and the cognizance order before the High Court contending that the prosecution had been launched after considerable delay, as a result of which the shelf life of the drug sample expired before he could exercise the statutory right available under the Act to have the sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory.

Court's Observations:

While examining the matter, the High Court analysed the statutory scheme governing testing and re-analysis of drug samples under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Court noted that Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act confers a valuable statutory right upon the accused to controvert the report of the Government Analyst and request the Court to send the retained sample for analysis to the Central Drugs Laboratory, whose report is treated as conclusive evidence.

The Court observed that this statutory right can be effectively exercised only when the retained portion of the drug sample remains capable of analysis within its shelf life. In this context, the Court noted,

“Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act confers a valuable right upon the accused to have the sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory, which acts as the final authority on the quality of the drug.”

The Court further observed that if the authorities fail to initiate prosecution within a reasonable period and the shelf life of the sample expires before the accused appears before the Court, the accused is effectively deprived of the statutory right contemplated under the Act.

Highlighting the facts of the present case, the Court noted that although the petitioner had expressed his intention to controvert the report of the Government Analyst, the authorities failed to take timely steps to ensure that the retained portion of the sample was sent for analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory. The Court observed,

“The petitioner, who intended to have the sample of the drug retained for the Court to be tested or analysed by the Central Drug Laboratory, could not get that opportunity.”

The Court further recorded that the shelf life of the drug sample expired before the petitioner could appear before the trial court after service of summons. Consequently, by the time the petitioner entered appearance before the trial court, the retained sample had already become incapable of analysis, thereby rendering the statutory safeguard under Section 25 ineffective, the Court maintained.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the delay attributable to the authorities had resulted in denial of a valuable statutory right guaranteed to the accused under the Act. The Court observed,

“Once the shelf life of the drug expires, the accused is deprived of the valuable right of seeking re-analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory, which is the final authority under the statute.”

Having found that the delay in launching prosecution resulted in expiry of the shelf life of the drug sample and consequently deprived the petitioner of the statutory right to seek re-analysis under Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the High Court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be unjustified.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama along with the order of taking cognizance of the offence.

Appearances:

Mr. Varut Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner.

No appearance on behalf of the Respondent.

Case Title: Sudhir Kumar Vs Peerzada Tasaduq Hussain (Drug Inspector)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to Read/Download the Judgment.