The court ruled that jurisdiction over offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act relating to Ayurvedic medicines lies exclusively within Magistrate Courts, invalidating cognizance taken by the Sessions Court.

Order :

ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The present petition challenges the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) whereby cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 33 EE and 33KA read with Section 33(1)(1)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (“the Act”) and the trial has been directed to proceed before the Special Sessions Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. The petitioner is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged solely as a distributor of Ayurvedic medicines and not the manufacturer. The case arises from the sampling of Ayurveda medicines and not the manufacturer. The case arises from the sampling of Ayurvedic medicine “Vasavaleha” collected on 07.09.2021 from the third party retail outlet by the District Ayurvedic Officer. The Government Analyst’s report dated 04.12.2021 found the sampled medicine sub-standard. The complaint, initiated by the District Ayurvedic/Unani Medical Officer was presented before the Sessions Court which proceeded to take cognizance and initiated trial proceedings under the aforesaid provisions.

3. The prosecution stems from sampling of Ayurvedic medicine and despite the petitioner being merely a distributor and the medicine manufactured by M/s. Shree Baidyanath Ayurveda Bhawan Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur, the complaint was filed before the Sessions Court, which took cognizance. A bailable warrant was issued on 03.06.2025.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Shri Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends that,

(i) the offence pertains to Ayurvedic medicine covered under Chapter IV-A of the Act.

(ii) Section 33A explicitly excludes the applicability of Chapter IV (relating to Allopathic drugs) to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani medicines. Therefore, procedural provisions applicable to Chapter IV do not apply.

(iii) Section 33M (2) restricts trial of offences under Chapter IV-A to Magistrate Courts only ie. Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate. Trial before a Sessions Court is without jurisdiction.

(iv) Section 36AB which empowers designation of Special Courts, applies strictly to offences enumerated under Chapter IV, not Chapter IV-A.

(v) The offence punishable with imprisonment for one year qualifies for summary trial under Section 36A exclusively before Magistrates.

(vi) The petitioner is merely a distributor; liability for manufacture and quality control does not attach to the distributor.

(vii) The cognizance by the Sessions Court is thus manifestly erroneous and results in an abuse of process.

5. It has been contended that the learned Sessions court has taken cognizance and initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 33EE and 33KA read with Section 33(1)(1)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, pursuant to the prosecution complaint arising from the sampling of Ayurvedic medicine collected on 07.09.2021 which was found to be sub-standard. The offence alleged falls within the ambit of Chapter IV A of the Act, specifically dealing with Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs. He vehemently argued jurisdictional infirmity as the core vice. Section 33EE and 33KA fall under Chapter IV A of the Act governing Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs exclusively. Section 33A unequivocally bars Chapter IV (allopathic drugs) applicability to such medicines while Section 33M(2) mandates trial solely by a Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate: “No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or of a Judicial Magistrate