'Enormity' Of Codeine Syrup 'Racket': Allahabad High Court Rejects Quashing Pleas Of Alleged Kingpin, Co-Accused; Upholds NDPS FIR

Dismissing a batch of 23 writ petitions, including that of the alleged Kingpin of the suspected Codeine Cough Syrup Racket, a Division Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that the enormity of the entire matter needs to be investigated.

The Court also said that although Phensedyl might technically fall under the exceptions of a "manufactured drug" when used therapeutically, however, the enormity of the quantity seized and the manner of its transport, disguised as chips and namkeen, justified investigation.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, as well as the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were rightly invoked in the case.

Briefly put, a series of FIRs were lodged across various district,s including Sonbhadra, Ghaziabad, Kanpur Nagar, Jaunpur and Varanasi. It has been alleged that a massive state-wide racket is being run involving the diversion of Phensedyl from Jharkhand to Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and eventually Bangladesh.

A number of accused, including the alleged kingpin (Shubham Jaiswal) had moved the HC challenging the FIRs. All of them faced similar charges of transporting, trading and dealing with intoxicating cough syrup bottles illegitimately.

The Court took grim note of the factual matrix presented in the FIRs. In one instance in Sonbhadra, an Excise Inspector intercepted containers ostensibly carrying “Hot Mix Namkeen" and chips from Ghaziabad to Jharkhand.

However, a rigorous search revealed that, hidden among the snack packets, were 119,675 bottles of ESKUF Cough Syrup containing Codeine.

In Ghaziabad, raids exposed that the syrup was being loaded into trucks hidden beneath wheat and rice sacks. The police recovered fake seals of pharmaceutical firms, laptops, and evidence that the accused were using forged Aadhar cards and citizenship documents to facilitate the trade.

Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, appearing for the state government, informed the Court that in Varanasi alone, over 2.23 crore bottles had been recovered, which highlighted the sheer scale of the operation.

He laid much emphasis on the enormity of the entire racket as he submitted that it could be said with confidence that the chemical codeine, which was an ingredient of the cough syrup, was not being used for medicinal or scientific purposes.

On the other hand, the petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Nipun Singh, argued that Phensedyl contains Codeine in a quantity of less than 100 milligrams per dosage unit and as per Govt of India's 1985 notification, such a composition is exempted from the definition of a "manufactured drug" under the NDPS Act.

Relying on the SC's judgment in Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India [2015], it was submitted that since the cough syrup in question i.e. Phensedyl was having dilutions and preparations with other compounds and also since codeine was not more than 100 mg. per dosage, therefore, it was not a 'manufactured drug' and also would not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Top Court's 2020 judgment in Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma was also relied upon to submit that only a Drug Inspector is competent to prosecute such cases and the Police have no authority to lodge FIRs under the NDPS Act or BNS.

High Court's observations

The High Court rejected the arguments of the petitioners by looking at the intent and method of the trade. The Bench relied heavily on the recent Supreme Court decision in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434 to observe thus:

"…phensedyl medicine which has codeine as a component which was being used in such enormity as was clear from the reading of the FIR then definitely we are of the view that the case had to be investigated into under all the sections of all the Acts under which the FIRs had been lodged”.

Analysing the facts of the case, the Bench further noted thus:

"Definitely we find that transferring of Phensedyl cough syrup was being done from Jharkhand to the State of Uttar Pradesh by e-way bills which were not in the proper category of carrying of drugs but were for the purposes of carrying of snacks and namkeen"

The Court also remarked that hiding medicines in grain sacks and using forged identities cannot be construed as dealing in drugs for medical or scientific purposes. Therefore, the protection under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act evaporates and the rigors of the NDPS Act kick in.

Addressing the argument that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is a special statute that should prevail, the Court referred to Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 80 of the NDPS Act.

This provision explicitly states that nothing in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prevents a person from being prosecuted under "any other law" for any act or omission.

Similarly, Section 80 of the NDPS Act provides that its provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

"If fabrication was there, as is evident from the FIR, then definitely cases of the petitioners would be covered under the various other sections of BNS as well," the Court remarked.

Thus, rejecting the petitions, the court permitted the police investigation to proceed with due diligence.