Complaint Barred By Limitation If Drug Is Only 'Not Of Standard Quality' And Not Spurious: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Prosecution

"In a case where the drug is stated to be 'not of a standard quality' and nothing more, punishment would be under Section 27(d) of the Act alone... the complaint must be filed within a period of 03 years from the date of the commission of the offence." Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a criminal complaint for manufacturing drugs "Not of Standard Quality" (NSQ) must be filed within the three-year limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC.

A bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that when a drug is merely found to be NSQ and not "spurious" or "adulterated" likely to cause death, it falls strictly under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The petitioner, Zee Laboratory, challenged a complaint and summoning order issued in 2018 regarding a drug sample ("Zextil 200") collected in August 2014. A Government Analyst report dated November 25, 2014, had declared the drug as "Not of Standard Quality" due to failure in 'Dissolution' tests. The Union of India filed the complaint three years and eight months after the receipt of the test report, alleging offences under Sections 18(a)(i) read with Sections 27(c) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The primary question before the court was whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether a drug declared "Not of Standard Quality" could be treated as a "spurious" drug under Section 27(c) to circumvent the limitation period.

Distinction Between Spurious Drugs and NSQ Drugs

The Court examined the statutory definitions of "Adulterated" (Section 17A), "Spurious" (Section 17B), and "Standard Quality" (Section 16). The bench noted that the test report only indicated that the drug did not conform to dissolution standards, meaning it was "Not of Standard Quality."

The Court observed that there was absolutely nothing in the complaint to suggest that the drug was spurious under Section 17B. It held that the liability for NSQ drugs, where no additional aggravating factors like being spurious are present, would fall under Section 27(d) of the Act.

Court Rejects Argument That NSQ Drugs Inherently Cause Grievous Hurt

The respondent argued that since the drug was of "Not of Standard Quality," its efficacy was low, which could potentially cause death or grievous hurt to patients. The respondent contended this brought the offence under the more severe Section 27(a) or 27(c), which carry longer prison terms and thus longer or no limitation periods.

The Court rejected this contention, stating that if every case of a drug not being of standard quality were treated as potentially causing death or grievous hurt, it would make Section 27(d) of the Act redundant. The bench clarified that Section 27(a) and 27(c) specifically require allegations of the drug being adulterated or spurious.

"If the said argument was to be accepted, then every case of a drug not being of standard quality would be punishable under Section 27(a) or 27(c) of the Act making Section 27(d) of the Act redundant."

Applicability Of Section 468 CrPC Limitation

The Court then turned to the issue of limitation. Under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. According to Section 468(2)(c) of the CrPC, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence punishable with imprisonment between one and three years is three years.

The Court calculated that the limitation began on November 25, 2014, when the test report was issued. Since the complaint was filed on March 1, 2018—a delay of three years and three months from the report—the Court held that the prosecution was clearly time-barred.

Delay In Filing Complaint Is Fatal To Prosecution

The bench emphasized that once the punishment is limited to two years under Section 27(d), the mandatory bar of Section 468 CrPC applies. The Court noted that the delay of three months beyond the three-year window was "fatal to the case of the respondent."

The Court further noted that a coordinate bench had previously observed that a Magistrate cannot even take cognizance under Section 27(c) as such offences are triable by a Special Court. Therefore, the summoning of the petitioner under both 27(c) and 27(d) was legally unsustainable.

"The impugned complaint was filed by the respondent on 01.03.2018 after a delay of 03 years and 03 months from the date of the test report. This is fatal to the case of the respondent."

The High Court concluded that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the Court quashed Complaint Case No. COMA 8-18, the summoning order dated March 1, 2018, and all consequential proceedings against Zee Laboratory.

Date of Decision: 13 July 2026