Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause Does Not Sanction Unilateral Appointment Or Arbitrary Interim Orders: Supreme Court POCSO Act | Statutory Presumption Under Section 29 Is Not Absolute And Does Not Dispense With The Requirement Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Establish Each Link Individually To Exclude All Hypotheses Other Than Guilt: Supreme Court Digitization Of Court Records | Failure To Maintain Complete E-Files Frustrates Justice Delivery: Rajasthan High Court Issues Directions For Paperless Functioning Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction To Try Offences Post-2009 Amendment; Case Must Be Committed To Court Of Sessions: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mere Fact That Assets Stand In Name Of Relative Doesn't Presume Abetment Of Corruption By Public Servant: Madras High Court Appellate Court Should Not Disturb Acquittal If Trial Court View Is Plausible And Based On Evidentiary Discrepancies: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Title If The Root Of Title Is Based On Fraudulent Or Non-Existent Grant: Karnataka High Court Digital Evidence In Divorce | Unverified Electronic Records Without Section 65B Certificate Fail To Prove Cruelty: Kerala High Court Allahabad HC Rules U.P. RERA Appellate Tribunal Can Remand Matters Under Section 11(5) RERA Act In Interest Of Justice Maintenance For Minor Child Cannot Be Denied Or Reduced Based On Defective Disclosure Affidavits Of Mother: Kerala High Court Income Tax | Administrative CBDT Circulars Cannot Override Statutory Provisions Or Tie The Hands Of A Court: Supreme Court Section 311 CrPC | Power To Recall Witness Cannot Be Used To Fill Lacunae Or Supplement Case At Belated Stage: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interim Protection In Appeal Is Conditional; Failure To Comply With Deposit Order Renders Relief Inoperative: Delhi High Court Right To Electricity Is A Facet Of Dignified Living; Restoration Of Supply Does Not Create Equity Or Title Over Premises: Calcutta High Court MEPS Rules | Delay In Submission Of Proposal By Management Cannot Be A Ground To Deny Approval To A Teacher: Bombay High Court Mere Exhibition Of Document Does Not Amount To Proof Of Contents: Gujarat High Court Section 92 CPC | Civil Court Cannot Pass Protective Interim Orders Before Grant Of Leave To Institute Suit: Supreme Court Deeming Provision Under Rule 10(5)(iii) Of 1978 Rules Cannot Validate Appointment Made In Violation Of Mandatory Statutory Reservation: Allahabad High Court Maharashtra Poisons Rules 1972 | Mandatory Addition Of Denaturants To Methanol Without Proportionality Analysis Violates Article 14 And 19(1)(g): Supreme Court Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Societies Possesses Power To Supersede Managing Committee Under Section 34 AP Cooperative Societies Act: High Court Order XXI Rule 1 CPC | Deposit Made To Obtain Stay Under Section 34 of 1996 Act Without Notice Is Not In Satisfaction Of Award: Supreme Court Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC | Mere Conclusion Of Evidence Does Not Bar Production Of Relevant Documents At The Stage Of Final Arguments: Allahabad High Court

Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction To Try Offences Post-2009 Amendment; Case Must Be Committed To Court Of Sessions: Himachal Pradesh High Court

19 September 2026 2:06 PM

By: sayum

"The legislature amended Section 32 of the Drugs Act by Act No.26 of 2008, which came into force on 10.08.2009, and provided that no Court inferior to the Court of Sessions shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter." Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that post the 2009 amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, a Judicial Magistrate lacks the jurisdiction to try offences under the Act, as such matters must be mandatorily committed to the Court of Sessions.

 Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, observed that "exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon the Court of Sessions on the date of presentation of the complaint," rendering any trial conducted by a Magistrate in such cases legally void ab initio.

The petitioner, Mahinder Singh, was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for stocking allopathic drugs without a valid license. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court upheld the conviction and sentence. The petitioner challenged these judgments in the High Court primarily on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, contending that the complaint, filed on 18 March 2010, ought to have been committed to the Court of Sessions rather than being tried by the Magistrate.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a Judicial Magistrate First Class possessed the jurisdiction to take cognizance and conduct a trial for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act after the enforcement of the 2009 Amendment. The Court was also tasked with determining whether the failure to commit the case to the Court of Sessions constituted a procedural illegality vitiating the entire trial proceedings.

Magistrate’s Jurisdictional Bar

The Court examined the impact of the amendment to Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which came into effect on 10 August 2009. The bench noted that the law specifically mandates that no court inferior to the Court of Sessions is empowered to try these offences. Consequently, any case instituted after this date must be committed to the Sessions Court.

Court Clarifies Procedural Retrospectivity

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of M.P., the Court emphasized that a change in the forum of trial is essentially a procedural matter. An accused cannot claim a vested right to be tried by a particular forum, and in the absence of a savings clause in the Amendment Act, the new procedural mandate applies to all cases instituted after the amendment's commencement.

The bench underscored that the amendment serves to ensure that serious offences under the Drugs Act are tried by a higher judicial forum. By shifting the trial to the Court of Sessions, the legislature intended to streamline the adjudication process for offences relating to spurious or adulterated drugs. Any trial held in contravention of this mandate by a Magistrate is procedurally unsustainable.

Finding merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court. The matter was remitted back to the Trial Court with a specific direction to follow the procedure prescribed under the amended Drugs Act and commit the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

Date of Decision: 10 September 2026

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    19 September 2026 9:00 AM
Order XXI Rule 1 CPC | Deposit Made To Obtain Stay Under Section 34 of 1996 Act Without Notice Is Not In Satisfaction Of Award: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    19 September 2026 9:00 AM
Deeming Provision Under Rule 10(5)(iii) Of 1978 Rules Cannot Validate Appointment Made In Violation Of Mandatory Statutory Reservation: Allahabad High Court
  • by sayum
    19 September 2026 9:00 AM
Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Societies Possesses Power To Supersede Managing Committee Under Section 34 AP Cooperative Societies Act: High Court
  • by sayum
    19 September 2026 8:59 AM
Maharashtra Poisons Rules 1972 | Mandatory Addition Of Denaturants To Methanol Without Proportionality Analysis Violates Article 14 And 19(1)(g): Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    19 September 2026 8:59 AM
Section 92 CPC | Civil Court Cannot Pass Protective Interim Orders Before Grant Of Leave To Institute Suit: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    19 September 2026 8:59 AM
Mere Exhibition Of Document Does Not Amount To Proof Of Contents: Gujarat High Court