Offences Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act Punishable Up To Three Years Triable By Specially Empowered Magistrate: J&K&L High Court

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the maintainability of a complaint under Sections 18(a)(i) and 27(d) of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner had contended that offences falling under Chapter IV could only be tried by a Court of Sessions.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Dhar rejected the objection, holding that “if an offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, the same would be triable by a Judicial Magistrate of first class specially empowered by the Government in this behalf in spite of the fact that the said offence may fall within Chapter-IV of the Act.”

The Court further clarified that “the saving clause in sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act clearly provides that the said sub-section would not apply to a case where the Act provides otherwise.”

The complaint arose from the lifting of a drug sample of a pharmaceutical preparation manufactured by the petitioner. After analysis by the Government Analyst and subsequent retesting by the Central Drugs Laboratory, the sample was declared not of standard quality. Prosecution was thereafter sanctioned, and a complaint was filed before the competent Magistrate.

The case underwent transfers between courts. At various stages, cognisance was taken, process issued, and the matter was committed and later returned to the Magistrate after the Sessions Court held that the offence was triable by a specially empowered Magistrate under Section 36-A.

During the course of the trial, the petitioner filed the present petition before the High Court, asserting that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction and that procedural requirements under the Act had not been complied with.

The High Court examined Section 27(d), noting that the offences under it were punishable with imprisonment extending up to two years. However, it observed that Section 36-A expressly provides that offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years are triable summarily by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class specially empowered by the State Government.

The Court analysed Section 32(1) and Section 32(2), observing that the prohibition on courts inferior to a Court of Sessions applies only “except where the Act provides otherwise.” It held that Section 36-A constitutes such an exception, thereby displacing the general rule in Section 32(2).

Referring to the reasoning of the Principal Sessions Judge, the Court noted that the UT Government had issued a notification empowering Magistrates to try such offences. The Court held that this statutory position could not be circumvented by relying on the general language of Chapter IV.

The Court also addressed additional objections raised by the petitioner regarding alleged non-compliance with Section 23(4). It was found that a portion of the sample had been furnished to the petitioner and that retesting had confirmed the earlier analytical result. The Court rejected the argument that the cognisance order was mechanical, noting that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had applied a judicial mind upon transfer of the case.

Holding that none of the grounds urged by the petitioner warranted interference, the High Court dismissed the petition. The proceedings before the Magistrate were accordingly permitted to continue.

Case Title: M/s Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment