2026 INSC 171 _________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 1 of 25

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2026

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 9281 OF 2025)

M/s SBS BIOTECH & OTHERS … APPELLANTS

versus

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

29.07.2024 in Cr. MMO No. 167 of 2018 passed by the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The Appellants sought

the quashing of Complaint No. 36/3 of 2017 (subsequently

renumbered as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017). The

Appellants are being prosecuted for contravening Section

18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74 and 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 2 of 25

under Section 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,

1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed

thereunder.

3. Factual Matrix:

(i) The Appellant No. 1, M/s SBS Biotech, is a partnership

firm engaged in the manufacturing of pharmaceutical

preparations at Mauza Rampur Jattan, Nahan Road, Kala

Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P.. The firm operates under valid

drug licenses issued in Form-25 and Form-28 of the Drugs

and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ('the Rules'), and is mandated

to adhere to Schedule-M of the Rules. Appellant No. 2,

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Santoshi, is the Production Head, and

Appellant No. 3, Mr. Avinash Banga, was arrayed as the

alleged managing partner at the relevant time.

(ii) The chronology of events commenced with an inspection

of the firm's premises conducted by the Drug Inspector on

22.07.2014. During this inspection, carried out in the

presence of officials of the firm, including the Production

Head, it was alleged by the Respondent that the firm had

not maintained the requisite records as stipulated by

Schedule-M and Schedule-U of the Rules. Specifically

concerning the drug Pseudoephedrine B. No. 503413,

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 3 of 25

inadequate details regarding the entry of the drug received

from Neha Pharma Pvt. Ltd. were noted, and the firm failed

to produce consumption records.

(iii) A Spot Inspection Report was prepared on 22.07.2014.

Through this report, the firm was directed under Section

22(d) of the Act not to dispose of the stock of the said drug

until the investigation was completed. Further, directions

were issued, commanding the firm, pursuant to Section

22(1)(cca) and 18-B of the Act, to produce the complete

record of purchase, sale/distribution, and consumption of

the said drug within a period of seven days. The Appellants

subsequently contended that serving directions via the

spot inspection report, rather than a separate notice, was

irregular.

(iv) A re-inspection of the manufacturing premises was

conducted on 05.08.2014. It was observed that the firm

had neither submitted a reply nor produced the complete

record as directed. During this re-inspection, it was

alleged that huge discrepancies were found in the record

of manufacturing, testing, and distribution. Allegations

were made that the record was tampered with at certain

places, including misleading entries and corrections made

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 4 of 25

with fluid. The firm allegedly failed to explain these

discrepancies satisfactorily.

(v) Consequent to these findings, the Drug Inspector seized

the drug and corresponding documents in Form-16 on

05.08.2014 for alleged contravention of Sections 18(a)(vi)

and 18-B of the Act. The seized items included 24.990 Kg

of Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride I.P. in a blue coloured

PVC drum, along with numerous documents, including

invoices, a register (pages 1 to 29 of the Pseudoephedrine

register), and Batch Production Records (BPRs) for various

batches of Eudocet tablets. On the same day (05.08.2014),

a separate letter (Annexure R-1/PE) was issued to the

firm, requiring them again to submit information, records,

and documents under various Sections, including

22(l)(cca), 18-B, and 22(3), within 15 days. The

Respondent asserted that the Appellants never responded

to this notice.

(vi) On 06.08.2014, the Respondent moved an application

before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, for

custody orders in terms of Section 23(5)(b) and (6) of the

Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, granted the

custody orders. The Appellants, however, consistently

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 5 of 25

asserted that while the seized drug (the PVC drum) was

produced before the Court, the records seized in Form-16

were never produced, constituting a blatant violation of

Section 23(6) of the Act.

(vii) The Appellants further averred that the Respondent

informed the State Drug Controller about the inspection

and seizure only after a period of 11 months (via letter

dated 02.07.2015). It was contended that this delay,

combined with the non-return of the seized original

records, constituted a violation of Section 22(2-A) of the

Act, which mandates the return of seized records within

20 days (after certified copies are taken).

(viii) A Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2015 was received by

the firm from the Assistant State Drug Controller-cum-

Licensing Authority, seeking an explanation regarding the

discrepancies observed. The firm responded via letter

dated 13.08.2015, specifically requesting the return of the

original documents and records seized in Form-16, or

certified copies thereof, noting that their absence

prevented the firm from formulating a complete reply.

Certified copies of the seized documents were eventually

received by the firm's representative on 14.09.2015.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 6 of 25

(ix) The firm submitted a comprehensive and detailed reply

dated 03.10.2015. In this reply, the firm contended that

there was no violation of Schedule-M or Schedule-U and,

therefore, no irregularity in maintaining the records. The

firm asserted that the deficiencies pointed out were minor,

routine, and generalized. The firm simultaneously

requested the release of the seized drug and original

records. The Respondent, in their counter-affidavit,

asserted that this reply was found to be totally incomplete

and unsatisfactory.

(x) The Prosecution Sanction was granted by the State Drug

Controller dated 15.09.2016. The sanction noted the

finding of the Screening Committee regarding

"irregularities with respect to maintenance of records as

required under Schedule M and Schedule U. The sanction

was accorded for prosecution under Section 18(a)(vi) read

with Rule 74, 18-B, and 22(l)(cca) of the Act and Rules.

The Appellants asserted that the prosecution sanction

nowhere averred that the manufactured drugs were

substandard, misbranded, adulterated, or spurious,

arguing that the maximum alleged offence related only to

record keeping punishable under Section 18-B/28-A.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 7 of 25

(xi) Pursuant to the sanction, the criminal Complaint No.

36/3 of 2017 was filed on 27.02.2017. The complaint

alleged contravention of Sections 18(a)(vi) read with Rule

74 and 22(l)(cca) and 18-B, punishable under Section

27(d) and 28-A of the Act.

(xii) The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, vide

Order dated 06.04.2017, took cognizance of the Complaint

and summoned the Appellants for offences punishable

under Section 18(a)(vi), 18-B, and 28A of the Act. The

Appellants contended that this order of cognizance was

non-reasoned and failed to apply judicial mind.

Furthermore, the Appellants contended that the

proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 468

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Cr.P.C’), arguing that the offence under Section 18-

B/28-A carries a punishment extending up to one year,

meaning the one-year limitation applied, whereas

cognizance was taken more than two and a half years after

the inspection (22.07.2014 to 06.04.2017).

(xiii) Thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

vide Order dated 05.10.2017, committed the case to the

learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur. This committal was

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 8 of 25

made on the finding that the offence punishable under

Section 27(d) read with Section 28-A is exclusively triable

by the Court of Special Judge. The case was renumbered

as Complaint No. 9 of 19.12.2017.

(xiv) The Appellants, being aggrieved by the Cognizance Order

dated 06.04.2017 and the Committal Order dated

05.10.2017, filed a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C (Cr.

MMO No. 167 of 2018) before the High Court of Himachal

Pradesh. They argued that the committal was illegal in

view of the saving clause under Section 32(2) read with

Section 36-A of the Act, which provides for summary trial

by a Judicial Magistrate First Class for offences

punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding

three years.

(xv) The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, vide the final

impugned Judgment dated 29.07.2024, dismissed the

Petition. The High Court held that the learned Special

Judge-I, Sirmaur, has jurisdiction to try the offences

under Chapter IV of the Act. The High Court determined

that the limitation period was three years under Section

468 Cr.P.C because the offence punishable under Section

27(d) carries imprisonment up to two years, thereby

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 9 of 25

rejecting the limitation plea. The High Court also

concluded that the omission of Section 27(d) in the

cognizance order was a clerical error.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of

quashing petition, the appellants have preferred the present

appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel

for the Respondent-State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would mainly contend that

the impugned complaint has been filed alleging contravention

of the provisions of Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 74 and 22

(1)(cca) and 18-B punishable under Section 27 (d) and 28-A of

the Act of 1940. However, the cognizance has been taken for

contravening Section 18 (a) (vi) and 18-B punishable under

Section 28-A of the Act of 1940. Learned counsel urged that

the High Court has committed an error by observing that the

omission on the part of the Magistrate referred under Section

27 (d) of the act is a typographical error. At this stage, it is also

submitted that in the present case, the question arises as to

whether non-maintenance and non-furnishing of the records

as prescribed under Schedule M & U of Rules of 1945 would

constitute an offence under Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 10 of 25

74 punishable under Section 27 (d) or would fall under Section

18-B punishable under Section 28-A of the Act of 1940.

7. Learned Counsel referred provisions contained in Section 18,

27 (d), 18-B as well as Section 28-A of the Act. Learned counsel

also referred the relevant rules as well as Schedule M & U of

the Rules. After referring to the same, learned counsel would

contend that Section 18 provides for Prohibition of

manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics and not

for maintenance of record or non-furnishing of information.

Further, the contravention shall have to be in relation to

manufacture, sale, or stock or exhibit or offer for sale of drugs

& cosmetics in contravention of any provisions of the said

Chapter (Chapter IV) or any Rule made thereunder. Learned

counsel, therefore, urged that primarily Section 27 (d) could

be invoked where the contravention is regarding any drug or

cosmetic but not in relation to maintenance of record and non-

furnishing of information.

8. At this stage, it is also contended that Section 18-B specifically

provides for non-maintenance of record and non-furnishing of

information and the same is made punishable under Section

28-A of the Act, for which the Trial Court has rightly taken

cognizance. At this stage, it is pointed out that Section 28-A is

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 11 of 25

punishable for a maximum period of one year and, therefore,

limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C would be one year.

Thus, in the present case, the complaint which has been filed

after a period of two and a half years would be barred by

limitation.

9. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision

rendered by this Court in the case of Miteshbhai J. Patel Vs.

Drug Inspector, 2025 SCC online SC 2203 . Learned counsel

has also relied upon decision in the case of Cheminova (India)

Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2021 (8) SCC 818.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that

another question arises for consideration is whether the

offence punishable with imprisonment for less than 03 years

and not to be tried by the Special Court under Section 36-AB,

or by the Court of Sessions, shall have to be tried by the

Magistrate Court in view of saving clause under Section 32(2)

read with Section 36-A of the Act of 1940.

11. Learned counsel referred the provisions contained in Section

32(2), 36-A and Section 36AB of the Act and, thereafter,

submitted that Section 32(2) starting with the saving clause

would give way to the applicability of Section 36-A of the Act

and, therefore, the offences punishable with imprisonment not

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 12 of 25

exceeding 03 years but not related to spurious or adulterated

drugs to be tried by Special Court under Section 36-AB or by

the Court of Sessions, shall essentially to be tried by the

Magistrate under Section 36A of the Act. Learned counsel,

therefore, contended that finding recorded by the High Court

regarding the offences falling under Chapter IV to be tried by

the Court of Sessions or by the Special Court, as the case may

be, is fallacious and deserves to be set aside.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the

High Court has committed an error while placing reliance

upon decision rendered by this Court in the case of Union of

India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma reported in 2021 (12) SCC

674. It is submitted that the said judgment was rendered by

this Court in different context and has no bearing on the facts

or law in the present case.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, urged that the

impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside and

thereby the proceedings filed by the respondent against the

appellants as well as the order of taking cognizance be

quashed and thereby the present appeal be allowed.

14. Per contra, learned DAG for the respondent-State has

vehemently opposed the present appeal. He would contend

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 13 of 25

that the concerned Inspector in the Spot Inspection Report

dated 22.07.2014 had recorded that the petitioners were

instructed not to dispose of the stock of the relevant drug

batch until the completion of the investigation. The petitioners

were also directed to furnish the remaining records, as the

documents produced at the time of inspection were found to

be incomplete. Further, during the seizure of the records

certain serious irregularities including total non-maintenance

of raw material, registers required under Schedules M & U of

the Act and the Rules were found. Most of the batches had no

entries or stock release records showing clear misuse and lack

of accountability thereby rendering the petitioners liable to be

punished under Section 27 (d) for violation of Section 18 (a)

(vi) of the Act read with Rule 74 of the Rules,1945.

15. Learned DAG further submits that the petitioners failed to

respond to the notice issued to them along with the Spot

Inspection Report. Despite repeated notices, the petitioners

failed to produce the requisite documents and, therefore, on

15.09.2016, the respondents applied for grant of sanction to

prosecute the petitioners under Section 18 (a) (vi) read with

Rule 74, 18-B and 22(1)(cca). After getting the sanction from

the Competent Authority, the impugned complaint came to be

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 14 of 25

filed upon which the cognizance was taken by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class on 06.04.2017.

16. At this stage, learned DAG has also referred relevant

provisions of the Act as well as the Rules and, thereafter,

contended that by not providing the complete records, the

petitioners have violated Section 27 (d) of the Act as well as the

Rules.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the

plea of limitation raised by the petitioners is misconceived.

Learned DAG submits that violation of Section 18 (a) (vi) is

punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Act which provides

punishment for a period of not less than one year which may

extend up to two years. Thus, the complaint is not barred by

limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C as contended by

learned counsel for the appellants.

18. Learned DAG lastly contended that the learned JMFC has

rightly committed the case of the learned Special Judge (I) as

the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) read with Section

28-A is exclusively triable by the Court of Special Judge.

19. Learned DAG, therefore, urged that the High Court has not

committed any error while rejecting the quashing petition filed

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 15 of 25

by the present appellants and, therefore, this Court may not

interfere with the impugned order.

20. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants

and having gone through the material placed on record as well

as the provisions of law and the decisions relied upon by the

learned Advocates, it transpires that the complaint has been

filed against the appellants on 22.02.2017 wherein specific

allegations are levelled with regard to the contravention of

Section 18 (a) (vi) read with Rule 74 and Section 22 (1)(cca)

and Section 18-B punishable under Section 27 (d) as well as

under Section 28-A of the Act. From the record it further

transpires that the appellant had not maintained the requisite

records as stipulated under Schedule M & U of the Rules.

21. At this stage, we would like to refer the relevant provisions of

the Act as well as the Rules.

Section 18 - Prohibition of manufacture and sale of

certain drugs and cosmetics.—From such date as may be

fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official

Gazette in this behalf, no person shall himself or by any other

person on his behalf—

(a) [manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell, or stock

or exhibit or offer for sale,] or

distribute………………………………………………………………

……………

……………………………..

(vi) any drug or cosmetic in contravention of any of the

provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 16 of 25

Section 18B-Maintenance of records and furnishing of

information.—Every person holding a licence under clause

(c) of section 18 shall keep and maintain such records,

registers and other documents as may be prescribed and shall

furnish to any officer or authority exercising any power or

discharging any function under this Act such information as is

required by such officer or authority for carrying out the

purposes of this Act.]

Section 22- Powers of Inspectors.—(1) Subject to the

provisions of section 23 and of any rules made by the Central

Government in this behalf, an Inspector may, within the local

limits of the area for which he is appointed

(a) inspect,— (i) any premises wherein any drug or

cosmetic is being manufactured and the means employed for

standardising and testing the drug or cosmetic; (ii) any

premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being sold, or

stocked or exhibited or offered for sale, or

distributed;…………………………………………………………

(cca) require any person to produce any record, register, or

other document relating to the manufacture for sale or for

distribution, stocking, exhibition for sale, offer for sale or

distribution of any drug or cosmetic in respect of which he has

reason to believe that an offence under this Chapter has been,

or is being, committed.

Section 27- Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs

in contravention of this Chapter —Whoever, himself or by

any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for

distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or

distributes.

(a)…………………………………………………………………………

….

(d) any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or

clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision

of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be

punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be

less than one year but which may extend to two years [and

with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand

rupees]:

Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special

reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of

imprisonment for a term of less than one year.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 17 of 25

22. Schedule M provides for good manufacturing practices for

premises and materials whereas Schedule U provides for

particulars to be shown in manufacturing records.

23. From the aforesaid provisions contained in the Act of 1940 and

the Rules framed thereunder it transpires that no person can

manufacture for sale or for distribution, or sell or stock or

exhibit or offer for sale or distribute any drug or cosmetic in

contravention of any provisions of Chapter IV or any Rule

made thereunder. Further, every person holding a license is

required to keep and maintain such records register and other

documents as may be prescribed and shall furnish to the

officer or authority exercising power under the Act. It further

transpires that Section 27 (d) specifically provides that if a

person manufactures for sale or for distribution or sells or

stocks or exhibits etc. any drug or other than drug in

contravention of any provisions of Chapter IV or any Rule

made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than one year but which may

extended to two years.

24. Now, keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, if the complaint

filed by the respondent against the appellants before the

learned JMFC is examined, it is revealed that in the title of the

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 18 of 25

complaint it has been specifically referred relevant provision of

the Act as well as the Rule including Section 18-B punishable

under Section 27 (d) and 28-A of the Act. Further, if the order

of cognizance is carefully examined, copy of which is placed on

Page 99 of the compilation, it is revealed that in the said order

also in the title Section 27 (d) of the Act is specifically referred.

25. At this stage, if the order of committal passed by the learned

JMFC, copy of which is produced at Page 103 of the

compilation, is once again carefully examined, it has been

specifically stated in Para 1 itself that the accused have been

sent up to stand their trial for the offence punishable under

Section 27 (d) read with Section 28-A of the Act. Further, in

last paragraph of the order once again the learned Magistrate

has observed that the offence punishable under Section 27 (d)

read with Section 28-A of the Act is exclusively triable by the

learned Court of Sessions Judge, therefore, the case of the

accused is committed to the Court of learned Special Judge (I),

Sirmaur District at Nahan. Thus, looking to the aforesaid

aspects it can be said that while writing the hand written

order, the learned JMFC has missed to mention Section 27 (d).

26. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that the complainant

has specifically alleged in the complaint filed before the

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 19 of 25

learned JMFC, against the present appellants, in Para 2 of the

complaint that, after disclosing identity and purpose the

record of the drug in question i.e. pseudoephedrine was

checked and inspected thoroughly in view of the provisions of

the Act and it was observed that the firm had not maintained

the records as per Schedule M & Schedule U of the Act of 1940

and Rules of 1945. Further, in paragraph 3 of the complaint it

has been further alleged that the firm was given opportunity

and time to disclose information, record/documents but firm

failed to disclose the complete record as asked and lot of

discrepancies in the purchase and sale record of the sold drug

in question were found. In paragraph 5 of the complaint it has

been further alleged that record was tempered at certain

places, some misleading entries were also observed. In

paragraph 7 of the complaint, the complainant has alleged

that after careful examination of the batch production record

as seized from the premises of the firm, it was also observed

that the firm has done the grievous manipulation and

violations at the time of manufacturing and testing of the said

drugs and committed blunder in manufacturing the drugs as

per the record as seized by the firm. It is also alleged that the

comparative study of the production, consumption and sale

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 20 of 25

has been done in this regard and it was observed that the

heavy misuse has been done by the firm for the said habit

forming drug and the firm could not produce the record for the

illegal sale done by the said firm. At this stage, we would like

to refer the provisions contained in Rule 74 of the Rules more

particularly its Clause (d). It provides that the licensee shall

keep records of the details of manufacture as per particulars

given in Schedule U of each batch of the drugs manufactured

by him and such record shall be retained for a period of 05

years.

(i) Now, if we refer Schedule M, it transpires that it provides

for good manufacturing practices and requirements of

premises, plant and equipment for pharmaceutical

products. Further, Clause 12 of Schedule M provides for

documentation and records.

(ii) Similarly, Schedule U states about particulars to be

shown in manufacturing records. Para (ii) of the said

Schedule states about records of raw materials.

27. From the aforesaid allegations levelled by the complainant in

the complaint as well as relevant provisions of the Rules and

Schedule M and U, it is revealed that allegations are with

regard to commission of an offence under Section 18(a)(vi) of

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 21 of 25

the Act of 1940. Thus, when the allegations are levelled for

commission of the offence punishable under Section 18(a)(vi)

of the Act, the same is punishable under Section 27(d) of the

Act.

28. In view of the aforesaid, when Section 27 (d) of the Act provides

for imprisonment for a term not less than one year but may

extend to two years, as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C. complaint

can be filed within a period of 03 years. In the present case,

the complaint has been filed within a period of 03 years (two

years and six months). We are, therefore, of the view that the

complaint is not time barred as contended by learned counsel

for the appellants.

29. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon

the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Miteshbhai

J. Patel (Supra). Learned counsel has more particularly

referred Para 7 to 9 of the said decision. It is required to be

observed that in paragraph 7 of the said decision this Court

has specifically held that any complaint disclosing offence

punishable under Section 27 of the Act ought to have been

made within a period of 03 years. In the said case, as observed

in Para 8, the complaint were filed much later than 03 years.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 22 of 25

In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the

complaint has been filed within a period of 03 years

and, therefore, the aforesaid decision would not render

any assistance to learned counsel for the appellants.

30. Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon

the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Cheminova

(India) Ltd. (Supra). In the said case also, as observed in Para

12, the complaint was filed beyond a period of 03 years and,

therefore, this Court quashed the complaint which was filed

after a period of 03 years on the ground that the said complaint

is barred by limitation under Section 469 of Cr.P.C.

We are, therefore, of the view that this decision would

not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

31. Now, at this stage, we would like to refer provisions contained

in Section 32 (2), 36-A & 36-AB of the Act which provides as

under:

Section 32: Cognizance of offences - (1) No prosecution

under this Chapter shall be instituted except by—

……………………………………………….

(2) 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

Section 36A- Certain offences to be tried summarily.—

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 5 [all offences (except the offences

triable by the Special Court under section 36AB or Court of

Session under this Act] punishable with imprisonment for a

term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 23 of 25

clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 33-I, shall be tried in a

summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the first class

specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government

or by a Metropolitan Magistrate and the provisions of sections

262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall, as far as

may be, apply to such trial : Provided that, in the case of any

conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be

lawful for the Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment

for a term not exceeding one year: Provided further that when

at the commencement of, or in the course of, a summary trial

under this section it appears to the Magistrate that the nature

of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term

exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is, for any

other reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the

Magistrate shall, after hearing the parties, record an order to

that effect and thereafter recall any witness who has been

examined and proceed to hear or rehear the case in the

manner provided by the said Code.

Section 36AB- Special Courts. — (1) The Central

Government, or the State Government, in consultation with the

Chief Justice of the High Court, shall, for trial of offences

relating to adulterated drugs or spurious drugs and

punishable under clauses (a) and (b) of section 13, sub-section

(3) of section 22, clauses (a) and (c) of section 27, section 28,

section 28A, section 28B and clause (b) of sub-section (1) of

section 30 and other offences relating to adulterated drugs or

spurious drugs, by notification, designate one or more Courts

of Session as a Special Court or Special Courts for such area

or areas or for such case or class or group of cases as may be

specified in the notification. Explanation. —In this sub-section,

“High Court” means the High Court of the State in which a

Court of Session designated as Special Court was functioning

immediately before such designation. (2) While trying an

offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an

offence, other than an offence referred to in sub-section (1),

with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.

32. From the provisions contained in Section 32(2) of the Act, it is

revealed that save as otherwise provided in the Act of 1940, no

Court inferior to that Court of Sessions shall try an offence

punishable under this Chapter (Chapter IV).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 24 of 25

(i) Now, if we carefully examine Section 36-A of the Act, it

transpires that the said Section provides that certain

offences are to be tried summarily. It has been

specifically provided that notwithstanding anything

contained in Cr.P.C., all offences punishable with

imprisonment for a term not exceeding 03 years other

than offence under Section 33(I)(1)(b) shall be tried in a

summary way by Judicial Magistrate First Class except

the offences triable by the Special Court under Section

36-AB or Court of Sessions.

(ii) Thus, Section 36-A specifically excludes the offences

triable by the Special Court under Section 36-AB or

Court of Sessions under this Act from the purview of

Section 36-A of the Act. Now, Section 32(2) specifically

provides that no Court inferior to that of a Court of

Session shall try an offence punishable under this

Chapter (Chapter IV). Thus, it can be said that for the

offences punishable under Chapter IV, the Court inferior

to the Court of Session shall not try such offences.

(iii) We are, therefore, of the view that when Section 32(2)

specifically provides for offence to be tried by the Courts

not inferior to the Court of Sessions, Section 36-A would

_________________________________________________________________________________________

SLP (Crl.) No. 9281 of 2025 Page 25 of 25

not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence,

learned JMFC has rightly committed the case to the

Court of Sessions and thereby has not committed

illegality as alleged by learned counsel for the appellants.

33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the

High Court has not committed any error while dismissing the

petition filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint. Hence, no

interference is required.

34. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

.......……….…………………….J.

[PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]

..….....………………………….J.

[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI,

20

th

February, 2026