No Fresh Gazette Notification Required on Inspector’s Transfer – Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash Drug Sale Prosecution Against Licensed Seller

“A narrow interpretation of Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act would defeat its purpose and hinder enforcement” In a significant ruling the Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea filed by a licensed drug distributor seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for alleged illegal drug sale to an unlicensed clinic. The Court, presided by Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, held that the transfer of a Drug Inspector from one jurisdiction to another does not necessitate a fresh Gazette notification, and that the Magistrate was competent to take cognizance and commit the case to the Sessions Court, as per procedure under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The case arose from proceedings initiated under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging that the petitioner had supplied allopathic drugs to a non-licensed practitioner, thereby violating the conditions of his Form 20B and 21B licenses. The petitioner had approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS, 2023, claiming bar of limitation, lack of authority of the Drug Inspector, and jurisdictional error by the Magistrate.

“Drugs Were Supplied to a Quack Clinic—Offences Prima Facie Made Out” – Court Finds No Abuse of Process

The petitioner, Vishwanath Kadli, was the proprietor of M/s. Kadli Pharma, licensed to sell drugs under Forms 20B and 21B. He was accused of supplying allopathic medicines to Accused No.1, Dr. S.C. Nekar, who allegedly ran an unlicensed clinic (Sanjeevani Clinic) and was not a registered medical practitioner.

As per the statutory conditions in the licenses issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, no sale of drugs can be made to a person without a valid drug licence. The Drug Inspector filed a private complaint in PCR No. 25/2023, and the JMFC at Laxmeshwar took cognizance, issuing summons to both accused.

Challenging this, the petitioner argued that the maximum punishment under Section 27(d) being two years, the case was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC. However, the Court rejected this argument, pointing out that Accused No.1 faced graver charges under Section 18(c) and Section 27(b)(ii), punishable with up to five years' imprisonment, and therefore, as per Section 468(3) CrPC, limitation was to be computed with reference to the most serious offence in the joint trial.

The Court observed: “In the present case, offences alleged against Accused No.1, who is also tried along with the petitioner (Accused No.2), are punishable with imprisonment up to five years. Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is therefore not applicable.

"Inspector Appointed for One Area Retains Authority Post Transfer" – Court Upholds Complainant’s Locus Under Section 21 of Drugs Act

Another pivotal ground raised was that the Drug Inspector who filed the complaint had only been notified as Inspector for Shivamogga Circle, and his transfer to Gadag Circle without a fresh Gazette notification invalidated his authority to initiate proceedings.

The High Court strongly rejected this contention. Referring to Section 21(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it held that once a person is duly appointed as an Inspector, his powers travel with him upon transfer, and re-notification for each transfer is not only impractical but also contrary to the legislative intent.

Justice Shetty emphasized:“Issuance of notification under Section 21(1) on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred is not at all practicable. A narrow interpretation would be unreasonable and not in furtherance of the object of the Act.”

Relying on State of Maharashtra v. Ghanshyam K. Zaveri and Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., the Court reiterated that transfer orders fall within the framework of Section 21(2) and that an Inspector’s powers are not geographically frozen once notified.

The Court categorically held: “The complainant in the present case was competent to initiate proceedings even after transfer to Gadag Circle. The absence of a second notification does not vitiate the prosecution.”

“Magistrate Must Take Cognizance Even When Only Sessions Court Can Try the Case” – No Illegality in Procedure, Rules High Court

A final challenge raised was procedural: that under Section 32(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, only a Court of Session can try the offence, and hence the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or issue summons.

Once again, the High Court rejected this argument. Referring to Section 193 CrPC, it clarified that Sessions Courts cannot take cognizance unless the case is committed to them by a Magistrate.

Quoting from the Court’s own ruling in M/s. Padma Pharmaceuticals v. State, 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 75, the judgment noted:

“Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act does not provide that the Court of Sessions can directly take cognizance of the complaint without an order of committal.”

Unlike the SC/ST Act or the Prevention of Corruption Act, which explicitly authorize Special Courts to directly take cognizance, the Drugs Act contains no such provision. The Court therefore concluded that the Magistrate's role in taking cognizance and committing the case to Sessions Court under Section 209 CrPC was entirely proper and lawful

"Complaint Properly Instituted, Limitation Inapplicable, Inspector Authorized – No Ground to Quash"

Summing up its findings, the High Court found no procedural or legal infirmity in the prosecution of the petitioner. It held that:

• The supply of drugs to a non-licensed person was a clear violation of license conditions, and offences were prima facie made out.

• Limitation under Section 468 CrPC was not applicable, since the joint trial involved graver offences against co-accused.

• The Drug Inspector retained locus standi post-transfer, and a fresh notification was not required under Section 21.

• The Magistrate followed correct procedure in taking cognizance and committing the case to the Sessions Court, as per Section 193 CrPC.

Justice Shetty dismissed the petition in its entirety, observing: “I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.”

This decision reinforces the judicial principle that technical objections should not be allowed to derail prosecutions under public welfare legislation, particularly when the offences involve public health and safety, such as the unregulated sale and dispensation of drugs. It also provides clarity on the procedural roles of Magistrates and Inspectors under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, harmonizing the special law with the procedural framework of the CrPC.

Date of Decision: 26th September 2025