Supreme Court of India
M/S Sbs Biotech vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra
2026 INSC 171
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 9281 OF 2025)
M/s SBS BIOTECH & OTHERS … APPELLANTS
versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH … RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated
29.07.2024 in Cr. MMO No. 167 of 2018 passed by the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The Appellants sought
the quashing of Complaint No. 36/3 of 2017 (subsequently
renumbered as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017). The
Signature Not Verified
Appellants are being prosecuted for contravening Section
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN
Date: 2026.02.20
16:15:05 IST
Reason:
18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74 and 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 1 of 25
under Section 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the Rules framed
thereunder.
3. Factual Matrix:
(i) The Appellant No. 1, M/s SBS Biotech, is a partnership
firm engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical
preparations at Mauza Rampur Jattan, Nahan Road, Kala
Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P.. The firm operates under valid
drug licenses issued in Form-25 and Form-28 of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (‘the Rules’), and is mandated
to adhere to Schedule-M of the Rules. Appellant No. 2,
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Santoshi, is the Production Head, and
Appellant No. 3, Mr. Avinash Banga, was arrayed as the
alleged managing partner at the relevant time.
(ii) The chronology of events commenced with an inspection
of the firm’s premises conducted by the Drug Inspector on
22.07.2014. During this inspection, carried out in the
presence of officials of the firm, including the Production
Head, it was alleged by the Respondent that the firm had
not maintained the requisite records as stipulated by
Schedule-M and Schedule-U of the Rules. Specifically
concerning the drug Pseudoephedrine B. No. 503413,
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 2 of 25
inadequate details regarding the entry of the drug receivedfrom Neha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. were noted, and the firm failed
to produce consumption records.
(iii) A Spot Inspection Report was prepared on 22.07.2014.
Through this report, the firm was directed under Section
22(d) of the Act not to dispose of the stock of the said drug
until the investigation was completed. Further, directions
were issued, commanding the firm, pursuant to Section
22(1)(cca) and 18-B of the Act, to produce the complete
record of purchase, sale/distribution, and consumption of
the said drug within a period of seven days. The Appellants
subsequently contended that serving directions via the
spot inspection report, rather than a separate notice, was
irregular.
(iv) A re-inspection of the manufacturing premises was
conducted on 05.08.2014. It was observed that the firm
had neither submitted a reply nor produced the complete
record as directed. During this re-inspection, it was
alleged that huge discrepancies were found in the record
of manufacturing, testing, and distribution. Allegations
were made that the record was tampered with at certain
places, including misleading entries and corrections made
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 3 of 25
with fluid. The firm allegedly failed to explain these
discrepancies satisfactorily.
(v) Consequent to these findings, the Drug Inspector seized
the drug and corresponding documents in Form-16 on
05.08.2014 for alleged contravention of Sections 18(a)(vi)
and 18-B of the Act. The seized items included 24.990 Kg
of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride I.P. in a blue coloured
PVC drum, along with numerous documents, including
invoices, a register (pages 1 to 29 of the Pseudoephedrine
register), and Batch Production Records (BPRs) for various
batches of Eudocet tablets. On the same day (05.08.2014),
a separate letter (Annexure R-1/PE) was issued to the
firm, requiring them again to submit information, records,
and documents under various Sections, including
22(l)(cca), 18-B, and 22(3), within 15 days. The
Respondent asserted that the Appellants never responded
to this notice.
(vi) On 06.08.2014, the Respondent moved an application
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, for
custody orders in terms of Section 23(5)(b) and (6) of the
Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, granted the
custody orders. The Appellants, however, consistently
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 4 of 25
asserted that while the seized drug (the PVC drum) was
produced before the Court, the records seized in Form-16
were never produced, constituting a blatant violation of
Section 23(6) of the Act.
(vii) The Appellants further averred that the Respondent
informed the State Drug Controller about the inspection
and seizure only after a period of 11 months (via letter
dated 02.07.2015). It was contended that this delay,
combined with the non-return of the seized original
records, constituted a violation of Section 22(2-A) of the
Act, which mandates the return of seized records within
20 days (after certified copies are taken).
(viii) A Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2015 was received by
the firm from the Assistant State Drug Controller-cum-
Licensing Authority, seeking an explanation regarding the
discrepancies observed. The firm responded via letter
dated 13.08.2015, specifically requesting the return of the
original documents and records seized in Form-16, or
certified copies thereof, noting that their absence
prevented the firm from formulating a complete reply.
Certified copies of the seized documents were eventually
received by the firm’s representative on 14.09.2015.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 5 of 25
(ix) The firm submitted a comprehensive and detailed reply
dated 03.10.2015. In this reply, the firm contended that
there was no violation of Schedule-M or Schedule-U and,
therefore, no irregularity in maintaining the records. The
firm asserted that the deficiencies pointed out were minor,
routine, and generalized. The firm simultaneously
requested the release of the seized drug and original
records. The Respondent, in their counter-affidavit,
asserted that this reply was found to be totally incomplete
and unsatisfactory.
(x) The Prosecution Sanction was granted by the State Drug
Controller dated 15.09.2016. The sanction noted the
finding of the Screening Committee regarding
“irregularities with respect to maintenance of records as
required under Schedule M and Schedule U. The sanction
was accorded for prosecution under Section 18(a)(vi) read
with Rule 74, 18-B, and 22(l)(cca) of the Act and Rules.
The Appellants asserted that the prosecution sanction
nowhere averred that the manufactured drugs were
substandard, misbranded, adulterated, or spurious,
arguing that the maximum alleged offence related only to
record keeping punishable under Section 18-B/28-A.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 6 of 25
(xi) Pursuant to the sanction, the criminal Complaint No.
36/3 of 2017 was filed on 27.02.2017. The complaint
alleged contravention of Sections 18(a)(vi) read with Rule
74 and 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable under Section
27(d) and 28-A of the Act.
(xii) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, vide
Order dated 06.04.2017, took cognizance of the Complaint
and summoned the Appellants for offences punishable
under Section 18(a)(vi), 18-B, and 28A of the Act. The
Appellants contended that this order of cognizance was
non-reasoned and failed to apply judicial mind.
Furthermore, the Appellants contended that the
proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 468
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Cr.P.C’), arguing that the offence under Section 18-
B/28-A carries a punishment extending up to one year,
meaning the one-year limitation applied, whereas
cognizance was taken more than two and a half years after
the inspection (22.07.2014 to 06.04.2017).
(xiii) Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
vide Order dated 05.10.2017, committed the case to the
learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur. This committal was
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 7 of 25
made on the finding that the offence punishable under
Section 27(d) read with Section 28-A is exclusively triable
by the Court of Special Judge. The case was renumbered
as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017.
(xiv) The Appellants, being aggrieved by the Cognizance Order
dated 06.04.2017 and the Committal Order dated
05.10.2017, filed a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C (Cr.
MMO No. 167 of 2018) before the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh. They argued that the committal was illegal in
view of the saving clause under Section 32(2) read with
Section 36-A of the Act, which provides for summary trial
by a Judicial Magistrate First Class for offences
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding
three years.
(xv) The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, vide the final
impugned Judgment dated 29.07.2024, dismissed the
Petition. The High Court held that the learned Special
Judge-I, Sirmaur, has jurisdiction to try the offences
under Chapter IV of the Act. The High Court determined
that the limitation period was three years under Section
468 Cr.P.C because the offence punishable under Section
27(d) carries imprisonment up to two years, thereby
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 8 of 25
rejecting the limitation plea. The High Court also
concluded that the omission of Section 27(d) in the
cognizance order was a clerical error.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of
quashing petition, the appellants have preferred the present
appeal.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel
for the Respondent-State.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that
the impugned complaint has been filed alleging contravention
of the provisions of Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 74 and 22
(1)(cca) and 18-B punishable under Section 27 (d) and 28-A of
the Act of 1940. However, the cognizance has been taken for
contravening Section 18 (a) (vi) and 18-B punishable under
Section 28-A of the Act of 1940. Learned counsel urged that
the High Court has committed an error by observing that the
omission on the part of the Magistrate referred under Section
27 (d) of the act is a typographical error. At this stage, it is also
submitted that in the present case, the question arises as to
whether non-maintenance and non-furnishing of the records
as prescribed under Schedule M & U of Rules of 1945 would
constitute an offence under Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 9 of 25
74 punishable under Section 27 (d) or would fall under Section
18-B punishable under Section 28-A of the Act of 1940.
7. Learned Counsel referred provisions contained in Section 18,
27 (d), 18-B as well as Section 28-A of the Act. Learned counsel
also referred the relevant rules as well as Schedule M & U of
the Rules. After referring to the same, learned counsel would
contend that Section 18 provides for Prohibition of
manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics and not
for maintenance of record or non-furnishing of information.
Further, the contravention shall have to be in relation to
manufacture, sale, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale of drugs
& cosmetics in contravention of any provisions of the said
Chapter (Chapter IV) or any Rule made thereunder. Learned
counsel, therefore, urged that primarily Section 27 (d) could
be invoked where the contravention is regarding any drug or
cosmetic but not in relation to maintenance of record and non-
furnishing of information.
8. At this stage, it is also contended that Section 18-B specifically
provides for non-maintenance of record and non-furnishing of
information and the same is made punishable under Section
28-A of the Act, for which the Trial Court has rightly taken
cognizance. At this stage, it is pointed out that Section 28-A is
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 10 of 25
punishable for a maximum period of one year and, therefore,
limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C would be one year.
Thus, in the present case, the complaint which has been filed
after a period of two and a half years would be barred by
limitation.
9. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision
rendered by this Court in the case of Miteshbhai J. Patel Vs.
Drug Inspector, 2025 SCC online SC 2203. Learned counsel
has also relied upon decision in the case of Cheminova (India)
Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2021 (8) SCC 818.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
another question arises for consideration is whether the
offence punishable with imprisonment for less than 03 years
and not to be tried by the Special Court under Section 36-AB,
or by the Court of Sessions, shall have to be tried by the
Magistrate Court in view of saving clause under Section 32(2)
read with Section 36-A of the Act of 1940.
11. Learned counsel referred the provisions contained in Section
32(2), 36-A and Section 36AB of the Act and, thereafter,
submitted that Section 32(2) starting with the saving clause
would give way to the applicability of Section 36-A of the Act
and, therefore, the offences punishable with imprisonment not
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 11 of 25
exceeding 03 years but not related to spurious or adulterated
drugs to be tried by Special Court under Section 36-AB or by
the Court of Sessions, shall essentially to be tried by the
Magistrate under Section 36A of the Act. Learned counsel,
therefore, contended that finding recorded by the High Court
regarding the offences falling under Chapter IV to be tried by
the Court of Sessions or by the Special Court, as the case may
be, is fallacious and deserves to be set aside.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
High Court has committed an error while placing reliance
upon decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of
India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma reported in 2021 (12) SCC
674. It is submitted that the said judgment was rendered by
this Court in different context and has no bearing on the facts
or law in the present case.
13. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, urged that the
impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside and
thereby the proceedings filed by the respondent against the
appellants as well as the order of taking cognizance be
quashed and thereby the present appeal be allowed.
14. Per contra, learned DAG for the respondent-State has
vehemently opposed the present appeal. He would contend
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 12 of 25
that the concerned Inspector in the Spot Inspection Report
dated 22.07.2014 had recorded that the petitioners were
instructed not to dispose of the stock of the relevant drug
batch until the completion of the investigation. The petitioners
were also directed to furnish the remaining records, as the
documents produced at the time of inspection were found to
be incomplete. Further, during the seizure of the records
certain serious irregularities including total non-maintenance
of raw material, registers required under Schedules M & U of
the Act and the Rules were found. Most of the batches had no
entries or stock release records showing clear misuse and lack
of accountability thereby rendering the petitioners liable to be
punished under Section 27 (d) for violation of Section 18 (a)
(vi) of the Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules,1945.
15. Learned DAG further submits that the petitioners failed to
respond to the notice issued to them along with the Spot
Inspection Report. Despite repeated notices, the petitioners
failed to produce the requisite documents and, therefore, on
15.09.2016, the respondents applied for grant of sanction to
prosecute the petitioners under Section 18 (a) (vi) read with
Rule 74, 18-B and 22(1)(cca). After getting the sanction from
the Competent Authority, the impugned complaint came to be
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 13 of 25
filed upon which the cognizance was taken by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class on 06.04.2017.
16. At this stage, learned DAG has also referred relevant
provisions of the Act as well as the Rules and, thereafter,
contended that by not providing the complete records, the
petitioners have violated Section 27 (d) of the Act as well as the
Rules.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the
plea of limitation raised by the petitioners is misconceived.
Learned DAG submits that violation of Section 18 (a) (vi) is
punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Act which provides
punishment for a period of not less than one year which may
extend up to two years. Thus, the complaint is not barred by
limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C as contended by
learned counsel for the appellants.
18. Learned DAG lastly contended that the learned JMFC has
rightly committed the case of the learned Special Judge (I) as
the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) read with Section
28-A is exclusively triable by the Court of Special Judge.
19. Learned DAG, therefore, urged that the High Court has not
committed any error while rejecting the quashing petition filed
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 14 of 25
by the present appellants and, therefore, this Court may not
interfere with the impugned order.
20. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and having gone through the material placed on record as well
as the provisions of law and the decisions relied upon by the
learned Advocates, it transpires that the complaint has been
filed against the appellants on 22.02.2017 wherein specific
allegations are levelled with regard to the contravention of
Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 74 and Section 22 (1)(cca)
and Section 18-B punishable under Section 27 (d) as well as
under Section 28-A of the Act. From the record it further
transpires that the appellant had not maintained the requisite
records as stipulated under Schedule M & U of the Rules.
21. At this stage, we would like to refer the relevant provisions of
the Act as well as the Rules.
Section 18 – Prohibition of manufacture and sale of
certain drugs and cosmetics.—From such date as may be
fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official
Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other
person on his behalf—
(a) [manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock
or exhibit or offer for sale,] or
distribute………………………………………………………………
……………
……………………………..
(vi) any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the
provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 15 of 25
Section 18B-Maintenance of records and furnishing of
information.—Every person holding a licence under clause
(c) of section 18 shall keep and maintain such records,
registers and other documents as may be prescribed and shall
furnish to any officer or authority exercising any power or
discharging any function under this Act such information as is
required by such officer or authority for carrying out the
purposes of this Act.]
Section 22- Powers of Inspectors.—(1) Subject to the
provisions of section 23 and of any rules made by the Central
Government in this behalf, an Inspector may, within the local
limits of the area for which he is appointed
(a) inspect,— (i) any premises wherein any drug or
cosmetic is being manufactured and the means employed for
standardising and testing the drug or cosmetic; (ii) any
premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being sold, or
stocked or exhibited or offered for sale, or
distributed;…………………………………………………………
(cca) require any person to produce any record, register, or
other document relating to the manufacture for sale or for
distribution, stocking, exhibition for sale, offer for sale or
distribution of any drug or cosmetic in respect of which he has
reason to believe that an offence under this Chapter has been,
or is being, committed.
Section 27- Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs
in contravention of this Chapter —Whoever, himself or by
any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for
distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or
distributes.
(a)…………………………………………………………………………
….
(d) any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or
clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision
of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than one year but which may extend to two years [and
with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand
rupees]:
Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special
reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than one year.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 16 of 25
22. Schedule M provides for good manufacturing practices for
premises and materials whereas Schedule U provides for
particulars to be shown in manufacturing records.
23. From the aforesaid provisions contained in the Act of 1940 and
the Rules framed thereunder it transpires that no person can
manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell or stock or
exhibit or offer for sale or distribute any drug or cosmetic in
contravention of any provisions of Chapter IV or any Rule
made thereunder. Further, every person holding a license is
required to keep and maintain such records register and other
documents as may be prescribed and shall furnish to the
officer or authority exercising power under the Act. It further
transpires that Section 27 (d) specifically provides that if a
person manufactures for sale or for distribution or sells or
stocks or exhibits etc. any drug or other than drug in
contravention of any provisions of Chapter IV or any Rule
made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than one year but which may
extended to two years.
24. Now, keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, if the complaint
filed by the respondent against the appellants before the
learned JMFC is examined, it is revealed that in the title of the
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 17 of 25
complaint it has been specifically referred relevant provision of
the Act as well as the Rule including Section 18-B punishable
under Section 27 (d) and 28-A of the Act. Further, if the order
of cognizance is carefully examined, copy of which is placed on
Page 99 of the compilation, it is revealed that in the said order
also in the title Section 27 (d) of the Act is specifically referred.
25. At this stage, if the order of committal passed by the learned
JMFC, copy of which is produced at Page 103 of the
compilation, is once again carefully examined, it has been
specifically stated in Para 1 itself that the accused have been
sent up to stand their trial for the offence punishable under
Section 27 (d) read with Section 28-A of the Act. Further, in
last paragraph of the order once again the learned Magistrate
has observed that the offence punishable under Section 27 (d)
read with Section 28-A of the Act is exclusively triable by the
learned Court of Sessions Judge, therefore, the case of the
accused is committed to the Court of learned Special Judge (I),
Sirmaur District at Nahan. Thus, looking to the aforesaid
aspects it can be said that while writing the hand written
order, the learned JMFC has missed to mention Section 27 (d).
26. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the complainant
has specifically alleged in the complaint filed before the
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 18 of 25
learned JMFC, against the present appellants, in Para 2 of the
complaint that, after disclosing identity and purpose the
record of the drug in question i.e. pseudoephedrine was
checked and inspected thoroughly in view of the provisions of
the Act and it was observed that the firm had not maintained
the records as per Schedule M & Schedule U of the Act of 1940
and Rules of 1945. Further, in paragraph 3 of the complaint it
has been further alleged that the firm was given opportunity
and time to disclose information, record/documents but firm
failed to disclose the complete record as asked and lot of
discrepancies in the purchase and sale record of the sold drug
in question were found. In paragraph 5 of the complaint it has
been further alleged that record was tempered at certain
places, some misleading entries were also observed. In
paragraph 7 of the complaint, the complainant has alleged
that after careful examination of the batch production record
as seized from the premises of the firm, it was also observed
that the firm has done the grievous manipulation and
violations at the time of manufacturing and testing of the said
drugs and committed blunder in manufacturing the drugs as
per the record as seized by the firm. It is also alleged that the
comparative study of the production, consumption and sale
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 19 of 25
has been done in this regard and it was observed that the
heavy misuse has been done by the firm for the said habit
forming drug and the firm could not produce the record for the
illegal sale done by the said firm. At this stage, we would like
to refer the provisions contained in Rule 74 of the Rules more
particularly its Clause (d). It provides that the licensee shall
keep records of the details of manufacture as per particulars
given in Schedule U of each batch of the drugs manufactured
by him and such record shall be retained for a period of 05
years.
(i) Now, if we refer Schedule M, it transpires that it provides
for good manufacturing practices and requirements of
premises, plant and equipment for pharmaceutical
products. Further, Clause 12 of Schedule M provides for
documentation and records.
(ii) Similarly, Schedule U states about particulars to be
shown in manufacturing records. Para (ii) of the said
Schedule states about records of raw materials.
27. From the aforesaid allegations levelled by the complainant in
the complaint as well as relevant provisions of the Rules and
Schedule M and U, it is revealed that allegations are with
regard to commission of an offence under Section 18(a)(vi) of
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 20 of 25
the Act of 1940. Thus, when the allegations are levelled for
commission of the offence punishable under Section 18(a)(vi)
of the Act, the same is punishable under Section 27(d) of the
Act.
28. In view of the aforesaid, when Section 27 (d) of the Act provides
for imprisonment for a term not less than one year but may
extend to two years, as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C. complaint
can be filed within a period of 03 years. In the present case,
the complaint has been filed within a period of 03 years (two
years and six months). We are, therefore, of the view that the
complaint is not time barred as contended by learned counsel
for the appellants.
29. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon
the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Miteshbhai
J. Patel (Supra). Learned counsel has more particularly
referred Para 7 to 9 of the said decision. It is required to be
observed that in paragraph 7 of the said decision this Court
has specifically held that any complaint disclosing offence
punishable under Section 27 of the Act ought to have been
made within a period of 03 years. In the said case, as observed
in Para 8, the complaint were filed much later than 03 years.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 21 of 25
In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the
complaint has been filed within a period of 03 years
and, therefore, the aforesaid decision would not render
any assistance to learned counsel for the appellants.
30. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon
the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Cheminova
(India) Ltd. (Supra). In the said case also, as observed in Para
12, the complaint was filed beyond a period of 03 years and,
therefore, this Court quashed the complaint which was filed
after a period of 03 years on the ground that the said complaint
is barred by limitation under Section 469 of Cr.P.C.
We are, therefore, of the view that this decision would
not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
31. Now, at this stage, we would like to refer provisions contained
in Section 32 (2), 36-A & 36-AB of the Act which provides as
under:
Section 32: Cognizance of offences- (1) No prosecution
under this Chapter shall be instituted except by—
……………………………………………….
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no court inferior to
that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable
under this ChapterSection 36A– Certain offences to be tried summarily.—
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 5 [all offences (except the offences
triable by the Special Court under section 36AB or Court of
Session under this Act] punishable with imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 22 of 25
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 33-I, shall be tried in a
summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class
specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government
or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections
262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as
may be, apply to such trial : Provided that, in the case of any
conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be
lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year: Provided further that when
at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial
under this section it appears to the Magistrate that the nature
of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any
other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the
Magistrate shall, after hearing the parties, record an order to
that effect and thereafter recall any witness who has been
examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the
manner provided by the said Code.
Section 36AB– Special Courts. — (1) The Central
Government, or the State Government, in consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offences
relating to adulterated drugs or spurious drugs and
punishable under clauses (a) and (b) of section 13, sub-section
(3) of section 22, clauses (a) and (c) of section 27, section 28,
section 28A, section 28B and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
section 30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs or
spurious drugs, by notification, designate one or more Courts
of Session as a Special Court or Special Courts for such area
or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be
specified in the notification. Explanation. —In this sub-section,
“High Court” means the High Court of the State in which a
Court of Session designated as Special Court was functioning
immediately before such designation. (2) While trying an
offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an
offence, other than an offence referred to in sub-section (1),
with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.
32. From the provisions contained in Section 32(2) of the Act, it is
revealed that save as otherwise provided in the Act of 1940, no
Court inferior to that Court of Sessions shall try an offence
punishable under this Chapter (Chapter IV).
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 23 of 25
(i) Now, if we carefully examine Section 36-A of the Act, it
transpires that the said Section provides that certain
offences are to be tried summarily. It has been
specifically provided that notwithstanding anything
contained in Cr.P.C., all offences punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 03 years other
than offence under Section 33(I)(1)(b) shall be tried in a
summary way by Judicial Magistrate First Class except
the offences triable by the Special Court under Section
36-AB or Court of Sessions.
(ii) Thus, Section 36-A specifically excludes the offences
triable by the Special Court under Section 36-AB or
Court of Sessions under this Act from the purview of
Section 36-A of the Act. Now, Section 32(2) specifically
provides that no Court inferior to that of a Court of
Session shall try an offence punishable under this
Chapter (Chapter IV). Thus, it can be said that for the
offences punishable under Chapter IV, the Court inferior
to the Court of Session shall not try such offences.
(iii) We are, therefore, of the view that when Section 32(2)
specifically provides for offence to be tried by the Courts
not inferior to the Court of Sessions, Section 36-A would
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 24 of 25
not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence,
learned JMFC has rightly committed the case to the
Court of Sessions and thereby has not committed
illegality as alleged by learned counsel for the appellants.
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the
High Court has not committed any error while dismissing the
petition filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint. Hence, no
interference is required.
34. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
…….……….…………………….J.
[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]
..……..………………………….J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
NEW DELHI,
20th February, 2026
_________________________________________________________________________________________
SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 25 of 25
