Magistrate Empowered To Try Drug Offence Under Section 27(d) Despite It Falling Under Chapter IV: J&K High Court

“Challenge Based On Jurisdiction, Sampling And Cognizance Is Misconceived And Factually Incorrect”, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, in a detailed judgment by Justice Sanjay Dhar, dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by M/s Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., seeking to quash a complaint and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar. The petitioner was facing prosecution for allegedly manufacturing and supplying a drug — Monocef Injection — that failed quality standards under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

High Court held that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner — including lack of jurisdiction of the Magistrate, alleged procedural violation in sampling, and non-application of mind at the stage of cognizance — were sustainable. The High Court not only upheld the competence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to try the offence but also found that the requirements of Section 23(4) regarding the supply of drug sample had been fully complied with and that the claim of non-supply was factually incorrect.

“Section 36-A Overrides Section 32 Where Offence Is Punishable With Less Than 3 Years’ Imprisonment”: Court Clarifies Statutory Position

One of the key contentions raised by Aristo Laboratories was that since the offence under Section 27(d) falls under Chapter IV of the Act, it could only be tried by a Court of Sessions in view of Section 32. The Court, however, rejected this interpretation and clarified:

“Section 36-A of the Act provides for summary trial of certain types of offences, which are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, by a Judicial Magistrate of first class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government… Thus, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, it would be triable by such Magistrate, even though it falls under Chapter IV.”

The Court also relied on SRO 44 of 2006 issued by the Government of J&K, which empowered all Judicial Magistrates of the State to try such offences under Section 36-A. Justice Dhar concluded:

“The contention of the petitioner that the complaint could not have been tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, is without merit.”

“Factual Record Clearly Shows That Portion Of The Drug Sample Was Supplied”: Court Rejects Allegation Of Non-Compliance With Section 23(4)

Aristo Laboratories had further claimed that the Drugs Inspector violated Section 23(4) by failing to provide a portion of the drug sample to the manufacturer, thereby denying the petitioner the statutory right to seek retesting. However, the Court, after reviewing the record, held that the sample was in fact supplied to the petitioner via communication dated 25.06.2012, and the company had even responded to it on 20.07.2012 and sought retesting. It was pursuant to this request that the trial court ordered the sample to be sent to Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, which also confirmed that the drug was not of standard quality.

“The contention of the petitioner that portion of the sample was not furnished to it is factually incorrect in view of clear stand of the petitioner in response to the communication dated 25.06.2012,” the Court observed.

“Initial Cognizance Order Was Cryptic, But Defect Cured By Detailed Subsequent Order”: No Ground To Quash Proceedings Under Section 482 CrPC

The petitioner also challenged the order taking cognizance as being mechanical and lacking judicial application of mind. The Court acknowledged that the initial order passed by the District Mobile Magistrate was cryptic, but clarified that a fresh and reasoned order was passed later by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag on 17.10.2015, after the matter was transferred back from the Sessions Court.

“In the said order, the learned Magistrate has, after noticing the allegations and applying his mind, recorded that prima facie offences under Section 18(a)(i) of the Act are made out against the accused… Therefore, the contention that the cognizance order is mechanical is without substance.”

Petition Filed At The Stage Of Defence Evidence – “No Abuse Of Process Or Miscarriage Of Justice”

Justice Sanjay Dhar also noted that the petition under Section 482 CrPC had been filed at a very late stage of trial, when evidence of the accused was already being recorded, and therefore, no justification existed to exercise inherent powers.

“The petition was filed at an advanced stage when trial was almost complete… No abuse of process or miscarriage of justice demonstrated.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition and vacated any interim orders that had been passed earlier in the matter.

With this judgment, the High Court has reaffirmed critical procedural and jurisdictional principles governing prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The decision clarifies the application of Sections 32 and 36-A, upholds the sufficiency of compliance with Section 23(4) in drug sampling cases, and reminds litigants that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked casually, especially when trial is nearing conclusion.

Date of Decision: 14 November 2025