Jammu and Kashmir High Court Quashes Proceedings in Drug Seizure Case

Court Finds Lack of Jurisdiction and Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provisions in Case Against Zahoor Ahmad Rada

In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, presided over by Justice Sindhu Sharma, quashed the criminal proceedings against Zahoor Ahmad Rada and others in a case concerning alleged offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case centered around a drug consignment seized in 2017, consisting of 17,600 capsules of SPASMO-PROXYVON PLUS, leading to charges against the petitioners under various sections of the Act.

The court found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, erred in taking cognizance of the offences, as only a Court of Sessions holds the jurisdiction to try such cases under the amended Section 32(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The judgment emphasized that the cognizance taken and the process issued by the Magistrate were without jurisdiction, thus rendering the proceedings legally untenable.

Additionally, the court observed a violation of mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 23(4) and 25(2) of the Act. The petitioners were not provided with necessary samples or reports, depriving them of their right to seek reanalysis. This non-compliance was deemed a significant procedural lapse, contributing to the decision to quash the proceedings.

The judgment also referenced precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases, underscoring the importance of adhering to statutory provisions to ensure fair trial rights. The court's decision highlights the need for strict compliance with legal requirements in prosecuting offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

The proceedings against the petitioners, including the cognizance order dated March 26, 2018, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, were quashed, securing the petitioners' relief from what the court considered an abuse of legal process.

Bottom Line:

Cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, must be taken only by a Court of Sessions as per Section 32(2) of the Act. Violation of mandatory provisions of the Act, including failure to provide samples or reports as required under Sections 23(4) and 25(2), renders the proceedings without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

Statutory provision(s): Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sections 18A, 18(c), 27(b)(ii), 28, 32(2), 23(4), 25(2).

Zahoor Ahmad Rada v. Union Territory of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810351