Can a Magistrate Try Offences Under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act? Supreme Court Answers

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is a cornerstone legislation regulating the manufacture, sale, distribution, and quality control of drugs and cosmetics in India. Given the public health implications of violations under this law, questions frequently arise regarding who has the jurisdiction to try offences under different provisions of the Act. One such recurring controversy relates to whether offences under Chapter IV of the Act can be tried by a Magistrate, or whether they are exclusively triable by a Court of Session or Special Court.

This issue recently came up before the Supreme Court of India, which authoritatively settled the legal position in M/s SBS Biotech & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2026 INSC 171). The judgment provides crucial clarity on the interplay between Sections 32(2), 36A, and 36AB of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the jurisdiction of Magistrates vis-à-vis offences under Chapter IV.

Overview of Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act

Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 deals with manufacture, sale, and distribution of drugs and cosmetics. It lays down prohibitions, duties of license holders, powers of inspectors, and penal consequences for violations.

Key provisions include:

• Section 18 – Prohibition of manufacture and sale of drugs and cosmetics in contravention of the Act or Rules
• Section 18B – Maintenance of records and furnishing of information
• Section 22 – Powers of Drug Inspectors
• Section 27 – Penalties for manufacture, sale, etc., in contravention of Chapter IV
• Section 28A – Penalty for non-disclosure of information

Violations under Chapter IV range from serious offences involving adulterated or spurious drugs to regulatory lapses such as non-maintenance of records under Schedules M and U.

Jurisdictional Puzzle: Magistrate or Sessions Court?

The controversy arises primarily due to Section 32(2) of the Act, which states:

“Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter.”

At the same time, Section 36A provides for summary trial by a Judicial Magistrate First Class for offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, except offences triable by a Special Court or Court of Session.

Further, Section 36AB empowers the Government to designate Special Courts (Courts of Session) for trial of offences relating to adulterated and spurious drugs, and certain other serious offences.

This overlapping scheme led to conflicting arguments:

• Does Section 36A override Section 32(2), enabling Magistrates to try Chapter IV offences?
• Or does Section 32(2) act as a jurisdictional bar against Magistrates for Chapter IV offences?

Facts of M/s SBS Biotech v. State of Himachal Pradesh

The appellants, a pharmaceutical manufacturing firm and its officials, were prosecuted for alleged violations of:

• Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74
• Section 18B and Section 22(1)(cca)
• Punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28A

The allegations primarily related to non-maintenance and tampering of manufacturing and consumption records under Schedules M and U of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class initially took cognizance and later committed the case to the Court of Session, holding that offences under Section 27(d) were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld this view.

The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that:

1. The offences were essentially record-keeping violations under Section 18B, punishable under Section 28A.
2. Such offences carry a maximum punishment of one year.
3. Hence, under Section 36A, they should be tried summarily by a Magistrate.
4. The committal to the Sessions Court was illegal.

Issues

The Supreme Court framed and addressed two central questions:

• Do violations relating to non-maintenance of records fall under Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27(d), or only under Section 18B, punishable under Section 28A?
• Can a Judicial Magistrate try offences under Chapter IV in view of Sections 32(2), 36A, and 36AB of the Act?

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Sections 18, 18B, and 27(d)

The Court held that:

• Section 18(a)(vi) prohibits the manufacture or sale of drugs in contravention of any provision of Chapter IV or any Rule made thereunder.
• Rules such as Rule 74 and Schedules M and U are integral to Chapter IV.
• Failure to maintain mandatory manufacturing records is not a mere technical lapse but a contravention of Chapter IV itself.

Accordingly, where allegations disclose systematic non-maintenance, manipulation, or misuse of records affecting manufacturing and distribution, such conduct can legitimately attract Section 18(a)(vi), punishable under Section 27(d).

The Court clarified that Section 18B and Section 28A do not exclude the applicability of Section 27(d) when the factual allegations disclose deeper violations impacting compliance with Chapter IV.

Limitation under Section 468 CrPC: Clarified

The appellants argued that since Section 28A prescribes a maximum punishment of one year, the limitation period was one year, rendering the complaint time-barred.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that:

• Once Section 27(d) is attracted, the punishment may extend up to two years.
• Under Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period for such offences is three years.
• Since the complaint was filed within two and a half years, it was not barred by limitation.

The Court distinguished earlier decisions such as Miteshbhai J. Patel v. Drug Inspector and Cheminova (India) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, noting that those cases involved complaints filed beyond the three-year limitation period.

Can a Magistrate Try Chapter IV Offences? Supreme Court’s Answer

This is the most significant aspect of the judgment.

The Supreme Court held unequivocally:

A Judicial Magistrate cannot try offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act where Section 32(2) applies.

Key Reasoning

Section 32(2) is a clear jurisdictional mandate

It expressly bars courts inferior to a Court of Session from trying Chapter IV offences, unless the Act itself provides otherwise.

Section 36A does not override Section 32(2)

Section 36A begins with “Notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC,” but notwithstanding the Act itself.

It expressly excludes:

• offences triable by the Special Court under Section 36AB, and
• offences triable by the Court of Session.

Harmonious Construction

The Court held that Section 36A must be read subject to Section 32(2). Since Chapter IV offences are expressly reserved for trial by courts not inferior to a Sessions Court, Section 36A cannot be invoked to vest jurisdiction in a Magistrate.

Legislative Intent

Given the serious public health implications of drug regulation, Parliament intended higher judicial scrutiny for Chapter IV offences, even where punishment may be relatively lower.

Rejection of the “Summary Trial by Magistrate” Argument

The appellants relied heavily on the phrase “offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years” in Section 36A.

The Supreme Court clarified that:

• The nature of the offence, not merely the quantum of punishment, is decisive.
• Chapter IV offences stand on a distinct footing due to Section 32(2).
• Summary trial provisions cannot dilute explicit jurisdictional bars.

Thus, even if an offence under Chapter IV is punishable with less than three years’ imprisonment, it does not automatically become triable by a Magistrate.

Final Holding of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court concluded that:

• Allegations disclosed offences under Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27(d).
• The complaint was not barred by limitation.
• Section 32(2) mandates trial by a Court not inferior to a Court of Session.
• Section 36A has no application to such cases.
• The committal of the case by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court was legally valid.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s decision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in M/s SBS Biotech & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh decisively answers a long-standing jurisdictional question. A Magistrate cannot try offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act when Section 32(2) applies. Even where punishment may not exceed three years, the statutory mandate reserves such trials for Courts of Session or designated Special Courts.

By harmoniously interpreting Sections 32(2), 36A, and 36AB, the Court has reinforced legislative intent, upheld regulatory rigour, and provided much-needed doctrinal clarity. The decision will significantly shape future prosecutions, judicial practice, and compliance standards under India’s drug regulatory regime.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams