Madras High Court
M/S.Dharma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd., vs The State Of Tamilnadu, on 9 April, 2026
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2026:MHC:1445
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 01-04-2026
Pronounced on : 09-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL OP Nos.27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
and
CRL MP Nos.14062 and 14063 of 2016
and
3620 and 3621 of 2017
1.M/s.Dharma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd.,
Sriperumbudur,
No.48, Grand West Trunk Road,
Opp. To Rajiv Gandhi Memorial,
Sriperumbudur – 602 105,
Tamil Nadu,
India.
Rep. by its Managing Trustee
Director Mr.V.Dharmalingam.
2.Mr.V.Dharmalingam, Aged 57 years,
Managing Director,
M/s.Dharma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd.,
Sriperumbudur – 602 105,
Tamil Nadu,
India.
Residing at
No.23, Parameswari Nagar,
II Street, Adyar,
Chennai – 600 020.
3.Mrs.Mageswari Dharmalingam,
aged 50 Years,
Director,
M/s.Dharma Pharmacy Pvt. Ltd.,
__________
Page1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
Sriperumbudur - 602 105,
Tamil Nadu,
India.
Residing at
No.23, Parameswari Nagar,
II Street, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.
...Petitioners
Vs
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by P.Thamarai Selvi,
Drugs Inspector,
Mylapore Range,
O/o. The Asst. Director of Drugs Control,
Zone - III, D.M.S. Campus,
259-261, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Union of India,
represented by The Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare,
Room No.402-D, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi -110011.
3.The Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization,
Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
FDA Bhawan,
ITO, Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110002.
(R2 and R3 are suo motu impleaded as
per the order of this Court dated 03.02.2026 in
Crl.OP.Nos.27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
in Crl.MP.Nos.14062 and 14063 of 2016
and 3620 and 3621 of 2017)
...Respondents
__________
Page2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
CRL OP No. 4847 of 2017
1.M/s.Dharma Pharmacy Pvt, Ltd.,
No.48, G.W.T. Road,
Opp.To Rajiv Gandhi Memorial,
Sriperumbudur – 602 105,
Tamil Nadu,
Rep by its Director,
Thiru.V.Dharmalingam.
2.Thiru.V.Dharmalingam,
aged 59 Years,
The Director,
M/s Dharma Pharmacy Pvt., Ltd.,
No.48, G.W.T. Road,
Opp.To Rajiv Gandhi Memorial,
Sriperumbudur – 602 105,
Tamil Nadu.
3.Tmt.Mageswari Dharmalingam
aged 56 Years,
The Director of,
M/s Dharma Pharmacy Pvt., Ltd.,
No.48 G.W.T.Road,
Opp To Rajiv Gandhi Memorial,
Sriperumbudur - 602 105,
Tamil Nadu.
...Petitioners
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by T.Gowri,
Drugs Inspector,
Arumbakkam Range,
O/o, The Assistant Director Of Drugs Control,
Zone-II, D.M.S. Campus,
259-261, Anna Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 006.
__________
Page3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
2. The Union of India,
represented by
The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Room No.402-D, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3.The Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization,
Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
FDA Bhawan,
ITO, Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110002.
(R2 and R3 are suo motu impleaded as per the
order of this court dated 03.02.2026 in
Crl.OP.Nos.27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017 in
Crl.MP.Nos.14062 and 14063 of 2016 and
3620 and 3621 of 2017)
...Respondents
CRL OP No.27548 of 2016
Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in CC.2841/2016 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Saidapet, Chennai – 600 016, and to quash the same.
CRL OP No. 4847 of 2017
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in C.C.No.6352 of 2016 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Egmore, Chennai and to quash the same.
__________
Page4 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
CRL OP Nos.27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
For Petitioners: Mr.V.Selvaraj
in both the Crl.O.Ps.
For Respondents: Mr. R. Muniyapparaj,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted By Mr. M. Sylvester John for R1
in both the Crl.O.Ps.
Mr. K. Ramanamoorthy,
Senior Panel Counsel for R2 & R3
in both the Crl.O.Ps.
Mr. R. John Sathyan,
Senior Counsel,
Amicus Curiae.
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by Sunder Mohan J.)
The above quash petitions are listed before us, pursuant to an
Administrative Order passed by Hon’ble Chief Justice, on the reference made
by a learned Single Judge of this Court to decide the following question:
“In the absence of any amendment to Section 8 of the
Special Act, whether a Drugs Inspector, who is appointed
under Section 8 of the Special Act viz., Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, is
competent to launch a prosecution, in respect of any drug
falling under Ayurvedha, Siddha or Unani, if the said
Drugs Inspector, is an Allopathy Drugs Inspector?
or in other words
__________
Page5 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017Whether in respect of violation or contravention of any
provisions of the Special Act viz., Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, only
the Drug Inspectors of the respective field (Ayurvedha,
Siddha, Unani) are competent / eligible to launch the
prosecution, in the absence of any amendment to the
Special Act.”
2. The learned Single Judge had also requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice
to initiate suo motu action as regards the following which also has been referred
for our consideration:
“(i) for regulation of “online advertisements”
of drugs and medicinal tablets that are specifically
banned under the Special Act viz., The Drugs
and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement)
Act, 1954.
(ii) To create a controlling mechanism for the
said purpose, since I find there are no rules or
regulations in respect on ‘online advertisement and
sale’, framed in Tamilnadu therefor.”
3. We shall first deal with the question that has been referred for our
consideration. The brief facts that are necessary to answer the above question
are as follows:
(a) The petitioners are facing prosecution for the offences under Sections
3(c) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act,
__________
Page6 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 20171954, punishable under Section 7(a) of the said Act and Section 3(d) read with
the Schedule under Sl.Nos.9 & 12 and 13 & 18 of the Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, punishable under Section
7(a) of the said Act, before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
(b) The petitioners are said to have caused an objectionable advertisement
in a magazine by the name of “Health Choice,” in respect of a drug,
“UTRAVIT – Syrup 200 ml,” claiming that it would cure all types of
diseases and disorders of the uterus, and another drug by the name of
“GLYCENIL Capsule,” claiming that it controls diabetes.
(c) The State had filed the complaints through the Drugs Inspector,
appointed and duly notified by the State in its Gazette, G.O. (4D) No. 20, dated
12.07.2013, as an Inspector for the State of Tamil Nadu.
(d) The petitioners filed the captioned quash petitions, which were heard
by Hon’ble Mr.Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman (as His Lordship then was).
It appears that the petitioners had placed reliance on an order passed by another
learned Single Judge, (Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Govindaraj, as His Lordship then
was) in W.P.Nos.34099 of 2012 and 45 of 2013, dated 11.04.2022, in support of
__________
Page7 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
their submission that a complaint given by the Drugs Inspector was not
maintainable.
(e) In W.P.Nos.34099 of 2012 and 45 of 2013, the learned Judge held that
an Inspector who is empowered to deal with allopathy drugs is not competent to
file a complaint if there is an objectionable advertisement relating to any
non-allopathy drugs such as Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, etc.
(f) The Hon’ble Mr.Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman, who heard the above
quash petitions, held that any Drugs Inspector, is competent to launch a
prosecution irrespective of whether he is a Drugs Inspector acquainted with
allopathy drugs or non-allopathy drugs such as Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani
under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act,
1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The learned Judge has referred the
above question in view of his differing opinion.
4. Mr.R.John Sathyan, the learned Senior Counsel who was appointed as
Amicus Curiae, submitted that the Act does not provide for any mechanism to
launch a complaint; that therefore, the Drugs Inspector(s), authorised to conduct
search and seizure under Section 8 of the Act and who are deemed to be public
servants in view of Section 11 of the Act, are competent to lodge a complaint;
__________
Page8 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
that since the prohibition under the Act is in respect of advertisements of certain
drugs, no specific qualification is required for the Drugs Inspector(s) to launch
the prosecution; and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical
Association and another Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.645/2022 dated 26.03.2025 had issued directions to all the States and Union
Territories of India to be followed for initiating action under the Act.
5. Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that
anybody can set the criminal law in motion; that the offences under the Act are
cognizable; that the Police have the power to investigate and file a Final Report;
that even assuming an officer appointed under Section 8 of the Act can lodge a
complaint, he cannot be treated as a public servant for the purpose of Section
200 Cr.P.C.; and that therefore, the question under reference does not really
arise for consideration.
6(i) Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
first respondent/State, would submit that the complaints were lodged in the year
2017; that the procedure directed to be followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
recently would be followed henceforth; and that the complaints cannot be
quashed on that ground and prayed for dismissal of the quash petitions.
__________
Page9 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
(ii) He would also submit that the complainant is a competent Gazetted
Officer appointed by the Government vide G.O.(Ms) No.2150 Health
dated 28.08.1973.
7. Though the reference is only to decide the question referred to above, it
is seen that there is no issue with regard to the competence of any Drugs
Inspector to set the law in motion in respect of the offences under the Act. The
learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that any person can set the
criminal law in motion and that includes a Drugs Inspector and no specific
qualification is required under the Act.
8. The real issue in this case is as to who can initiate prosecution under
the Act, in the absence of any mechanism to lodge a complaint under the Act.
We say so not only because of the submissions made but also because of the
directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical
Association’s case (supra). The offences under the Act are cognizable as per
Section 9A of the Act. Though Section 8 of the Act provides for the power of
search and seizure by Gazetted Officer(s), authorised by the State Government,
there is no specific provision, authorising the said Gazetted Officer(s) to lodge a
complaint. According to Section 11 of the Act, the Gazetted Officer(s)
appointed under Section 8 of the Act are deemed public servants. However, that
__________
Page10 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
deeming provision is only for the purpose of search and seizure. It is perhaps for
this reason that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association’s
case (supra) was of the view that a machinery must be created for effective
implementation of the Act.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case had issued the following
directions to all the States and Union Territories of India.
“We, therefore, issue the following directions to
the States and Union Territories:
(i) The States/Union Territories shall ensure
that adequate number of Gazetted Officers authorised
in terms of Section 8(1) of 1954 Act are appointed
within a period of one month from today;
(ii) Officers or persons authorised as referred to
in Rule 3 of 1955 Rules are also appointed within a
period of one month from today; and
(iii) We direct the States to sensitize the police
machinery through the Police Training Institutes in the
States about the importance of the implementation of
the provisions of 1954 Act and Rules framed
thereunder.
(iv) The State Governments shall create
a Grievance Redressal Mechanism to enable the
members of the public to
lodge complaints about the objectionable__________
Page11 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017advertisements prohibited under the 1954 Act.
The Grievance Redressal Mechanism may provide for
making complaints either through
a toll free number or by e-mail. We direct the State
Governments to create proper Grievance Redressal
Mechanisms within a period of two months from today
and give adequate publicity to the availability of
Grievance Redressal Mechanism at frequent intervals.
(v) As soon as complaints are received through
the Grievance Redressal Mechanism or otherwise, the
same shall be immediately forwarded to the
concerned officers authorised under Section 8(1) of the
1954 Act to take action under the said provision. If the
officer finds that there is a contravention of the
provisions of the 1954 Act, he shall, apart from taking
action under Section 8, forthwith set criminal law in
motion by lodging a complaint with the jurisdictional
police station so that an FIR can
be registered and criminal law is set in motion.”
10. The above directions would further strengthen our view that the
officers authorised in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act are not statutorily
empowered to lodge a complaint and, in any case, not in their capacity as a
public servant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that officers appointed
under Section 8 (1) of the Act who find that there is a contravention of the
provisions of the Act shall, apart from taking action under Section 8, forthwith
set the criminal law in motion by lodging a complaint with the jurisdictional
police station so that an FIR can be registered. The consequence of an FIR
__________
Page12 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
being registered is that the jurisdictional police have to follow the procedure
under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, thereafter and file a Final Report.
11. It is needless to mention that cognizance of any offence by the learned
Magistrate can be taken either on a complaint or on a police report or suo motu
as per Section 190 of Cr.P.C. The fact that the offence is cognizable may not bar
a private complaint by any person. However, in view of the above directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that the procedure directed to be
followed has to be strictly complied with. Even in an exceptional case where the
Drugs Inspector chooses to file a complaint before the learned Magistrate
directly, he cannot be deemed to be a public servant for the purpose of Section
200 of Cr.P.C., and he would be treated on par with any private citizen, as he is
not statutorily empowered to lodge a complaint. We are also supported by the
fact that only a restricted power has been conferred on the Drugs Inspector,
appointed under Section 8(1) of the Act, viz., to inform the Magistrate about the
search and seizure and obtain orders as to the custody of the objects / documents
or registers seized thereof under Section 8(3) of the Act. No other power has
been conferred on the Drugs Inspector, so appointed. Therefore, in view of the
above orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question of law that has been
__________
Page13 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
referred does not really arise for consideration, and the State Governments are
bound to follow the above directions.
12. In the instant case, the complaints have been lodged by the
Drugs Inspector, claiming that permission was granted by the Director of Drugs
Control, Tamil Nadu, to investigate and file a complaint. In fact, sanction also
has been obtained to prosecute the petitioners. The Act does not provide for any
such mechanism, and the Drugs Inspector(s), who have been authorised by the
G.O., issued in the year 1973 referred to above, are not competent to either
investigate or lodge a complaint. In any case, as stated above, he cannot claim
the privileges of a public servant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In view of the
procedural irregularities in the lodging of the complaint and in the taking of
cognizance, we are of the view that the impugned complaints are liable to be
quashed. However, liberty is granted to initiate fresh prosecution in accordance
with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subject to the
provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
13. The next issue that has been referred for our consideration is for
taking action to regulate online advertisements of Drugs and Tablets that are
banned under the Act and to create a mechanism for the said purpose. The
Central Government was suo motu, impleaded by this Court. They had filed an
elaborate Status Report giving details of the draft rules framed and stating that
the objections/suggestions have been called for from all the stakeholders. The
__________
Page14 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
affidavit further states that the amendment of the rules would also involve
changes and amendments in other allied enactments and all that would be done
in due course.
14. In fact, in the Indian Medical Association’s case (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed that the definition of the word “advertisement” is
inclusive and takes within its fold advertisements in printed media or on
television or other media. The relevant portion reads as follows:
“The basic object is to ensure that objectionable
advertisements of drugs and magic remedies are not
published. Section 2 defines both ‘drugs’ and ‘magic
remedies’. What is more important is the definition of
‘advertisement’ contained in Clause (a) of Section 2 which
reads thus:
“2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires, – (a) “advertisement”
includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or
other document, and any announcement made
orally or by any means of producing or
transmitting light, sound or smoke;”
As rightly stated by the learned Amicus Curiae, the
definition of advertisement is an inclusive definition. It
includes advertisements made in any manner. For the sake
of clarity, the legislature has clarified that any notice,
circular, label, wrapper or other document, and any
announcement made orally or by any means of producing
or transmitting light, sound or smoke, will amount to an
advertisement. Thus, an advertisement is not restricted to
__________
Page15 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
advertisement in printed media or on television or other
media. It goes to the extent of covering a notice, circular,
label, wrapper or other document or any announcement
made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting
light, sound or smoke.
15. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section
2 of the Act takes care of online advertisements as well, it is needless to say that
the authorities concerned can take action even in respect of online
advertisements. We do not wish to further dilate on this issue, as we find that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already issued directions, and the Central
Government is in the process of taking steps to curb and deal with online
advertisements that are prohibited. We may also note here that when the learned
Judge had requested suo motu action to formulate a mechanism, he did not
have the benefit of the order passed in the Indian Medical Association’s case
(supra), by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
16. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petitions are
disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.)
09-04-2026
Index : Yes
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dk
__________
Page16 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
CRL OP No. 27548 of 2016
To
1. P.Thamarai Selvi,
Drugs Inspector, Mylapore Range,
The State of Tamilnadu,
O/o. The Asst. Director of Drugs Control,
Zone – III, D.M.S. Compound,
259-261, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai –600 006.
2.The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
The Union of India,
Room No.402-D, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3.The Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization
Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
FDA Bhawan,
ITO, Kotla Road,
New Delhi – 110 002.
CRL OP No. 4847 of 2017
To
1.T.Gowri,
Drugs Inspector, Arumbakkam Range,
The State of Tamil Nadu.
O/o, The Assistant Director of Drugs Control,
Zone-II, D.M.S. Campus,
259-261, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
The Union of India,
Room No.402-D, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
__________
Page17 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
3.The Central Drugs Standard Control
Organization
Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of India,
FDA Bhawan,
ITO, Kotla Road,
New Delhi-110002.
__________
Page18 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP Nos. 27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.
AND
SUNDER MOHAN J.
dk
CRL OP Nos.27548 of 2016 and 4847 of 2017
and
CRL MP Nos.14062 and 14063 of 2016
and
3620 and 3621 of 2017
Dated 09-04-2026
__________
Page19 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis