FIR and Special Laws: Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 28, 2020, ruled on a significant legal issue regarding the interplay between the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The key question before the Court was whether an FIR could be registered under the CrPC for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or whether the procedure prescribed under Section 32 of the Act is the exclusive mechanism for prosecution.

The case arose when the Drug Inspector of Mau, Uttar Pradesh lodged an FIR against Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others for allegedly stocking and selling medicines without a license, violating Sections 18(a)(i) and 27 of the Act. The accused moved the High Court of Allahabad, which quashed the FIR on the grounds that the Act provides a specific mechanism for prosecution and does not permit police intervention. The matter was then taken to the Supreme Court by the Union of India.

Background of the Case

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, regulates the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs and cosmetics in India to ensure their quality and efficacy. Chapter IV of the Act contains provisions related to the manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs, with strict penalties for violations.

On February 22, 2018, an online complaint was made against a medical store operating without a valid drug license. Following an inspection by the Drug Inspector, it was found that the owner was stocking and selling medicines without authorization. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged on June 22, 2018, under Section 18(a)(i) and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The accused filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that the lodging of an FIR under CrPC was illegal because the Act has an exclusive mechanism for prosecution under Section 32. The High Court ruled in favor of the accused and quashed the FIR, prompting the Union of India to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Union of India)

The Union of India, represented by legal counsel, argued that:

• The Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not explicitly prohibit the registration of an FIR for offences under its provisions.
• The CrPC, being a general law, applies unless explicitly excluded by a special statute.
• Allowing the police to investigate ensures prompt action in cases involving public health and safety.
• There is no inconsistency between the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the CrPC in prosecuting offences under Chapter IV of the Act.
• The High Court erred in concluding that an FIR cannot be registered and that the Drug Inspector is the only authority competent to prosecute.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others)

The accused countered the arguments by asserting that:

• The Drugs and Cosmetics Act is a self-contained legislation with its own procedure for prosecution.
• Section 32 of the Act explicitly lays down the categories of persons who can initiate prosecution, which does not include the police.
• The legislature, by specifying a particular procedure, intended to exclude the general provisions of the CrPC.
• The Act ensures that only authorized officers with expertise in drug regulation take legal action.
• The High Court rightly quashed the FIR as it violated the explicit procedural framework provided in the Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court extensively examined the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and its relationship with the CrPC. The Court made the following key observations:

• Section 32 of the Act specifies that only the Drug Inspector, a Gazetted Officer, an aggrieved person, or a recognized consumer organization can file a complaint.
• Unlike other laws, the Act does not confer powers on the police to investigate and prosecute offences.
• The phraseology of Section 32 indicates that the legislature intended it to be a self-contained mechanism.
• Allowing police action would override the safeguards built into the Act and could lead to harassment and misuse.
• The High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, as the Act does not permit the lodging of an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC.

Important Verbatim Observations by the Supreme Court

The Court, in its judgment, stated:

“By no stretch of imagination could the concerned Inspector have lodged an FIR in this case and authorize the police to make an investigation.”

“The Drugs and Cosmetics Act lays down a complete code for the trial of offences under its provisions. The intent of the legislature is clear: prosecution must be initiated only in the manner prescribed under Section 32.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that:

• The FIR registered under Section 154 of the CrPC for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was illegal.
• Only persons explicitly mentioned in Section 32 of the Act are authorized to initiate prosecution.
• The High Court’s decision to quash the FIR was justified and in accordance with the law.
• The Drug Inspector, if necessary, could file a proper complaint under Section 32.

Impact of the Judgment

This landmark ruling has far-reaching implications:

• It clarifies that special laws with specific procedural safeguards override the general provisions of the CrPC.
• It ensures that police authorities cannot interfere in regulatory matters governed by expert-driven legislation.
• It prevents unnecessary criminalization and misuse of police powers in cases governed by regulatory statutes.
• It reinforces the principle that procedural requirements in special laws must be strictly followed.

The Supreme Court’s judgment sets an important precedent for cases involving the interplay between special laws and the CrPC, ensuring that prosecution is carried out in accordance with legislative intent.

Petitioner Name: Union of India.
Respondent Name: Ashok Kumar Sharma & Others.
Judgment By: Justice K.M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Mau, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 28-08-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India vs Ashok Kumar Sharma & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-08-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category