J&K High Court Dismisses Pharma Company's Plea to Quash 12-Year-Old Prosecution Over Substandard Drug

Srinagar – The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by M/S Aristo Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. seeking to quash a 12-year-old criminal complaint regarding the manufacture of a "not of standard quality" drug. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, in a judgment pronounced on November 14, 2025, rejected all grounds raised by the pharmaceutical company, including challenges to the trial court's jurisdiction and alleged procedural lapses, allowing the long-pending trial to proceed.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to 2012 when a Drugs Officer in Anantnag lifted a sample of the injection ‘Monocef’ (Batch No. D16B271), manufactured by Aristo Laboratories. The sample, taken from a local trader, was sent for analysis to the Government Analyst in Jammu, who declared it "not to be of standard quality."

Following this report, the drug control authorities initiated an investigation, meticulously tracing the supply chain through several distributors back to the manufacturer, M/S Aristo Laboratories. After obtaining the necessary sanction, a criminal complaint was filed against the company and its distributors for violating Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The case saw a complex procedural history, moving between the Magistrate's Court and the Sessions Court over jurisdictional questions. Notably, the petitioner company availed its right to have the sample re-tested at the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta, which also confirmed the drug was not of standard quality. After the case was finally settled to be triable by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) and later transferred to Srinagar, the petitioner filed the present plea in the High Court to quash the entire proceedings as the trial neared completion.

---

Petitioner's Key Arguments

The petitioner, M/S Aristo Laboratories, challenged the proceedings on three primary grounds:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction: It was argued that under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the offence could only be tried by a Court of Sessions, and therefore the CJM, Srinagar, lacked the authority to hear the case.
   
   
2. Procedural Non-compliance: The company claimed that the Drugs Inspector violated the mandatory provision of Section 23(4) of the Act by not providing it with a portion of the collected sample.
   
   
3. Mechanical Cognizance: The petitioner contended that the initial order taking cognizance of the offence was cryptic and passed without due application of mind by the Magistrate.

---

High Court's Reasoning and Decision

Justice Sanjay Dhar meticulously addressed and dismissed each of the petitioner's arguments.

On Jurisdiction:

The Court clarified the interplay between Section 32 and Section 36-A of the Act. While Section 32 generally bars courts inferior to a Court of Sessions from trying offences under Chapter IV, it contains a saving clause for situations "otherwise provided" in the Act. Justice Dhar pointed out that Section 36-A is precisely such a provision, empowering specially designated Judicial Magistrates of the first class to conduct summary trials for offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years.

> "The saving clause in sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act clearly provides that the said sub-section would not apply to a case where the Act provides otherwise. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that the impugned complaint could not have been tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, is without any merit."

The judgment affirmed the 2015 order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Anantnag, which had correctly identified the Magistrate's jurisdiction based on SRO 44 of 2006.

On Supply of Sample:

The Court found the petitioner's claim of not receiving a sample to be "factually incorrect." The judgment highlighted that the complaint explicitly stated that a portion of the sample was sent to the company on June 25, 2012. Furthermore, the company's subsequent actions—responding to the communication and later applying for re-testing of the sample—proved that it had received the sample as required by law.

On Cognizance Order:

While acknowledging that the very first cognizance order from 2012 might have been cryptic, the Court noted that a fresh order was passed by the CJM, Anantnag, on October 17, 2015. This subsequent order was deemed valid as the Magistrate had applied his mind to the complaint's allegations before concluding that a prima facie case was made out.

> "In the said order, the learned Magistrate has, after noticing the allegations made in the complaint and applying his mind to the same, recorded that prima facie offences under Section 18(a)(i) of the Act are made out against the accused... Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the order taking cognizance of offences is mechanical in nature, is without any substance."

---

Final Verdict and Implications

Concluding that the petition lacked merit, the High Court dismissed it and vacated all interim orders. The decision clears the path for the trial court in Srinagar to conclude the proceedings against M/S Aristo Laboratories, which have been pending for over a decade. The ruling reinforces the jurisdiction of specially empowered Magistrates in drug-related offences and underscores the court's reluctance to quash proceedings at a belated stage, especially when the accused has participated in the trial process.