High Court Quashes Drug Offence Proceedings Against Srinagar Residents Over Jurisdictional and Procedural Lapses

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed criminal proceedings against three petitioners from Srinagar, citing lack of jurisdiction by the trial court and violation of mandatory procedural safeguards under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The decision, delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sindhu Sharma on November 17, 2025, in CRM(M) No. 839/2022, underscores the strict adherence required to procedural norms in drug-related prosecutions.

Case Background

The case originated from the seizure of a drug consignment on April 12, 2017, at the Commercial Taxes Check Post, Lakhanpur, by authorities. A search of a truck (registration JK01AB-4741) driven by one of the petitioners uncovered 17,600 capsules of SPASMO-PROXYVON PLUS hidden in a briefcase. The petitioners—Zahoor Ahmad Rada (63), Bilal Ahmad Seeru (40), and Ashiq Hussain Dar (43)—were accused of failing to provide details about the source of the consignment, leading to allegations under Sections 18-A and 18(c) read with Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act.

The respondent, the Union Territory of J&K through the Drug Inspector, Kathua, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kathua. On March 26, 2018, the CJM took cognizance of offences under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 and issued process against the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this via a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing jurisdictional overreach and procedural irregularities.

Key Arguments from Both Sides

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Aatir Javed Kawoosa, contended that the CJM lacked jurisdiction to try offences under Chapter IV of the Act, as Section 32(2) mandates that only a Court of Sessions can handle such cases following amendments effective from September 10, 2009. They further argued non-compliance with Section 23(4)(iii), which requires sending a sample portion to the manufacturer or disclosed supplier for potential re-testing, denying them a valuable right to challenge the analysis.

The respondent, represented by Additional Advocate General Raman Sharma, defended the proceedings but did not address the jurisdictional issue or sample provision compliance in detail, as per the judgment's observations.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The court relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents to bolster its reasoning. In Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. v. State of T.N. (2018) 15 SCC 93, the apex court quashed proceedings where the accused's right to re-analysis was violated due to failure to send the sample under Section 23(4)(iii), noting that such lapses render prosecutions "lame" given the drug's limited shelf life. The judgment excerpted key paras:

> “8. ...the valuable right of the appellant to have the sample analysed in the Central Laboratory has been denied by a series of defaults committed by the prosecution... As the valuable right of the accused for reanalysis vested under the Act appears to have been violated... the present would be a fit case to interdict the criminal trial against the appellant-accused.”

Similarly, in Medicamen Biotech Limited v. Rubina Bose (2008) 7 SCC 196, the Supreme Court quashed proceedings for depriving the accused of rights under Sections 25(3) and 25(4), emphasizing that mandatory provisions cannot be overlooked.

The High Court distinguished that while Section 32(1) allows Inspectors to institute prosecutions, Section 32(2) bars courts inferior to Sessions from trying them, rendering the CJM's actions void ab initio. This aligns with principles against abuse of process, ensuring procedural fairness in regulatory offences impacting public health.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The court clarified the jurisdictional bar succinctly:

> “From the perusal of the provision, it is clear that it is only the Court of Sessions which can try the offences punishable under this Chapter... The learned Magistrate thus had no jurisdiction to try the complaint, but the learned Magistrate has not only taken cognizance but also issued process, despite the fact that he had no jurisdiction to try the same, as such, the proceedings against the petitioner are bad and are liable to be set aside.”

On procedural non-compliance:

> “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that neither the sample nor the report has ever been provided to the petitioners. Perusal of the file reveals that no such report has been provided to the petitioners, and in such circumstances, the entire criminal proceedings including cognizance are fit to be quashed.”

Court's Final Decision and Implications

The petition was allowed in full. The High Court quashed the complaint, the March 26, 2018 cognizance order, and all consequent proceedings, deeming them an abuse of process and without jurisdiction "to secure the ends of justice."

This ruling reinforces the sanctity of jurisdictional limits and procedural rights in drug enforcement, potentially impacting similar cases nationwide. It highlights the need for drug inspectors to strictly follow sampling protocols, preventing miscarriages of justice and ensuring robust prosecutions. For legal practitioners, it serves as a reminder that non-compliance with the Act's safeguards can derail even well-founded complaints.