The court clarified the jurisdiction for trial under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, especially concerning provisions under Sections 32 and 36A.

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the committal proceedings initiated by docket order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur converting the C.C.No.116 of 2021 into PRC.NO.66 of 2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The petitioners are the accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent for the offences under Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging that on 27.01.2020 the sample of Cephalexin Capsules was drawn for analysis from Government Urban Primary Health Centre, Thiruttani and the same was sent for analysis on the same day. Thereafter, from the report dated 25.02.2020, the sample was declared as “not of standard quality” for the reason that the sample does not confirm to label claim with respect to the content of Cephalexin Anhydrous and Dissolution. Therefore, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 05.03.2020 to the accused. The accused, by their reply dated 12.03.2020 failed to agree the report of the Government Analyst. Hence, the complaint.

4. After taking cognizance by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur, the accused were served with the copies. However, by the docket order dated 04.11.2023, the calendar case was converted to PRC.No.66 of 2022 stating, since the complaint falls under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and as per Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the case should be tried only by the Court of Sessions.

5. Similar issue was already dealt with by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.13125 of 2022 dated 04.01.2024 wherein this Court held as follows:-

" 3. Chapter IV of the Act covers the provisions which provides for the Courts which can take cognizance of the offence and deal with the case. Section 32 of the Act deals with cognizance of offences and Section 32(2) of the Act is extracted hereunder:

32.Cognizance of offences.

..

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session try an offence punishable under this Chapter.

4. It is clear from the above provision that no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session can try any offence punishable under Chapter IV, save as otherwise provided in the Act. This would mean that if there is any other provision under the Act which enables some other Court to try the offence, Section 32(2) of the Act will have to yield to that provision.

5. The other provisions which have to be taken into consideration are Sections 36A and 36AB. Section 36A deals with certain offences which can be tried summarily. This provision was brought in through an amendment made by Act 68 of 1982 which came into effect from 01.02.1983. The provision itself start with a non-obstante clause and its states that the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under Clause(b) of Sub-section (1) of 33-I, can be tried in a summary manner by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class especially empowered in this regard by the State Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate. The provision also makes it clear that the Magistrate Court must follow the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C.,while conducting the summary proceedings.

6. It is quite apparent from the above provision that Section 36A is one exception to Section 32(2) of the Act. Whatever offences fall within the scope of Section 36A can be dealt with by means of summary proceedings by the Judicial Magistrate of first class especially empowered by the State Government or by any Metropolitan Magistrate. Paragraph 15 of the order does not deal with cases of t