AI Overview...
-
Complaint Authority and Prosecution Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
The Act primarily empowers designated authorities, such as Drug Inspectors and Assistant Drug Controllers, to file criminal complaints for violations (e.g., selling unlicensed or misbranded drugs). The authority to initiate prosecution is generally restricted to authorized officials, and investigations or seizures conducted by police without proper authority under the Act are often deemed invalid. For instance, police lacked authority under Section 27 and related provisions to conduct searches or seize drugs without proper authorization (INDMAD00000518600, INDMAD00000108477, 02300083394).
Reference: Manjit Singh VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana, M/S.MEDYBIZ PHARMA PVT. LTD., vs THE DRUGS INSPECTOR - Madras, M/s.Hetero Drug Ltd. vs State represented by S.R.Arumugam Drug Inspector Salem - Madras, Arjun VS State of Maharashtra - Crimes, Arjun Maruti Magar VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay, J.VINODH vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY - Madras, S. K. Kapur VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, Bablu @ Rajesh Kumar VS State Of Bihar - Patna, Gaurav Chawla VS State of U. T. Chandigarh - Punjab and Haryana, Maman Chand Jain VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Crimes. -
Section 18 and Due Diligence in Sale and Possession
Section 18 of the Act provides defenses for persons who can prove they acquired drugs from licensed sources or exercised due diligence in handling drugs. Courts have emphasized that retailers must demonstrate proper storage, knowledge, and reasonable diligence to avoid liability (INDMAD00000518600, INDMAD00000108477).
Reference: M/s.Hetero Drug Ltd. vs State represented by S.R.Arumugam Drug Inspector Salem - Madras, J.VINODH vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY - Madras. -
Legal Procedure and Quashing of Complaints/FIRs
Complaints or FIRs under the Act can be quashed if procedural requirements are not met, such as lack of proper sanction, jurisdiction, or violation of rights, including the right to have samples tested under Section 25(4). Courts have quashed FIRs where investigation was initiated by unauthorized persons or without adherence to statutory procedures (02300006551, 00800051117, 00500029522).
Reference: S. K. Kapur VS State Of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, Bablu @ Rajesh Kumar VS State Of Bihar - Patna, Maman Chand Jain VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Crimes. -
Limitations and Restrictions on Police Authority
The police do not have inherent authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to investigate or seize drugs unless authorized by the specific provisions of the Act. Unwarranted police action without proper authority can lead to quashing of FIRs and dismissal of cases (02300083394).
Reference: Gaurav Chawla VS State of U. T. Chandigarh - Punjab and Haryana.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act delineates clear authority structures for filing complaints, conducting investigations, and prosecuting violations. Police and other agencies must operate within the scope of statutory provisions; otherwise, their actions can be invalidated. The Act emphasizes the importance of proper licensing, due diligence, and adherence to procedural safeguards, including rights to testing samples and obtaining necessary sanctions before initiating prosecution. Violations of these procedural requirements can lead to the quashing of complaints or FIRs, reinforcing that the Act does not grant arbitrary or extralegal authority to produce complaints or conduct investigations.
Search Results for "Drugs and Cosmetic Act Not Produce Complaint Section Authority"
2011 0 Supreme(P&H) 166 • India - Punjab and Haryana
NIRMALJIT KAUR
relevant provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by filing a criminal complaint if so advised. ... to carry these medicine nor produced a valid written purchase order--Held; the said drugs are not covered by the NDPS Act--Hence ... Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss. 22, 61 and 85--Drugs and Cosmetics ... Drugs Inspect....
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 33426 • India - High Court of Madras
Honourable Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN
without the required signed orders, citing violations of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. ... Drugs - Prohibition of Sale - Drugs and Cosmetic Act - [18(c), 27(d), Rule 65(9)(b)] - This case highlights the importance of ... Fact of the Case: The Drug Inspector filed a complaint against a pharmaceutical company for selling H-schedule drugs ... In this case, the plea of limitation is not in favour of the petitioners si....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58560 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J
Section 18 if he proves- (a) that he acquired the drug or cosmetic from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the drug or cosmetic
• India - Crimes
PRASANNA B.VARALE, VIBHA KANKANWADI
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Sections 18(c), 18(a) (I), 17(b) and 17-A(b) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – ... 18(c), 18(a)(i), 17 (b) and 17-A (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 but even for attracting provisions of Sections 175, 274, 275 ... only attracting the offence under the provisions of Sections 18(c), 18(a)(i), 17 (b) and 17-A (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act ... but m....
2020 0 Supreme(Bom) 1462 • India - Bombay
P.B.VARALE, VIBHA KANKANWADI
DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT - F.I.R. ... court examined the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, particularly Sections 32, 21, 22, 17, 17-A, and 18. ... and Cosmetics Act. ... the said authority. ... The offence punishable under section 27(b)(ii) of the Act has not been included in Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section#HL_....
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 442 • India - High Court of Madras
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
Drugs - Criminal Procedure - Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Sections 18, 19 - The court ruled that a retailer must prove due diligence ... 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. ... Fact of the Case: The petitioner sought to quash a complaint filed against him as a retailer for selling non-standard ... Section; and (c) that the drug or cosmetic, while in his possession was properly stored and remained in....
1996 0 Supreme(P&H) 1606 • India - Punjab and Haryana
K.S.KUMARAN
DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT - SECTION 25 - SECTION 18(1)(I) - SECTION 27(B)(I) - SECTION 26 - SECTION 32 - COMPLAINT QUASHED - RIGHT ... the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940? ... right to have the sample tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory under Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940....
2021 0 Supreme(Pat) 866 • India - Patna
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, VIKASH JAIN, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA, CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
(Paras 56 and 57) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 32 – Whether it is a complaint or an FIR which would ... , or offered for sale, they would be covered by Chapter IV of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Prosecution under Section 32 of Drugs ... are under Chapter IVA of Act can be instituted, except by an Inspector with previous sanction of authority specified under sub-#HL_....
2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1672 • India - Punjab and Haryana
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
not met, and the police had no authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to conduct the investigation or seizure. ... - Section 7 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 27 - Quashing of FIR for alleged offences of cheating and violations of drug ... regulations - Essential elements of cheating not established; police lacked authority to conduct search and seizure under the #....
• India - Crimes
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940—Section 32—FIR for offences under section 27(c) r/w section 18(a)(i), 17B, 36AC of the Act and under ... section 420 IPC registered on complaint made by Assistant Drug Controller—Petition quashing FIR on ground that only person or authority ... , in view of bar under section 32 of the Act, was prohibited from investigating an offence under Chapter IV....
Filter by Legal Phrase
