Karnataka High Court Upholds Drug Inspector's Authority in Licensing Violation Case
Court dismisses petition challenging competency of Drug Inspector and procedural compliance under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the competency of a Drug Inspector to initiate proceedings without requiring a fresh notification upon transfer, dismissing the petition filed by Vishwanath, proprietor of M/s. Kadli Pharma. The case, Criminal Petition No. 103433 of 2024, centered around allegations of Vishwanath supplying drugs to an unlicensed practitioner, violating license conditions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Presiding Judge, Mr. S. Vishwajith Shetty, emphasized that the transfer of a Drug Inspector does not necessitate a new notification under Section 21(1) of the Act. The court clarified that a transfer order suffices for compliance, dismissing contentions of incompetency in filing complaints post-transfer.
The petitioner argued that the complaint was time-barred under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), due to the alleged offence's maximum punishment of two years. However, the court noted that the offences tried together with those carrying longer sentences, like the five-year punishment for the co-accused, negate the applicability of Section 468.
Further, the court addressed procedural concerns under Section 32(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, affirming that while offences under Chapter IV are triable by a Sessions Court, the Magistrate can take cognizance and commit cases as per Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. This procedure was followed, and the case was duly committed to the Sessions Court.
The judgment reinforces the statutory framework allowing Inspectors to operate across jurisdictions post-transfer without additional bureaucratic hurdles, aligning with precedents from the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court.
The decision marks a pivotal interpretation of compliance and procedural mandates under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, ensuring streamlined enforcement against licensing violations without procedural encumbrances.
Bottom Line:
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Complaint against accused for supplying drugs in violation of license conditions - Transfer of Drug Inspector without issuance of fresh notification under Section 21(1) does not render the Inspector incompetent to initiate proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Sections 21(1), 32(1)(a), 32(2); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 468, 209; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528.
Vishwanath v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785031
