MUKUT BIHARI GOYAL AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Interpretation of Sections 32(2) and 36A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Magistrate's Jurisdiction Preserved for Offences with Limited Imprisonment Despite Amendment.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:36334
Decision Date: 19-12-2025
List of Laws
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 36A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Facts: The petitioners, accused of offences under Sections 18(a)(i), 16, and 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for manufacturing non-standard quality Lupizyme, challenged an order committing their case from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) to the Sessions Court. The complaint was filed in 2005, and the committal order was based on a 2009 amendment to the Act.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the order of the JMFC committing the case to the Sessions Court. The High Court had previously granted interim relief staying the implementation of the committal order.
- Issue: Did the JMFC err in committing the case to the Sessions Court based on the 2009 amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, considering the original complaint was filed before the amendment and the offences are punishable with imprisonment up to two years? Specifically, does Section 36A of the Act preserve the Magistrate's jurisdiction for offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, despite Section 32(2) generally requiring trial by a Court of Session?
- Holding: Yes, the JMFC committed a manifest error of law. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the committal order, and directed the JMFC to try the case.
- Reasoning: The High Court reasoned that while Section 32(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act generally mandates trial by a Court of Session, Section 36A provides an exception, allowing a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class to try offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years. The court emphasized the "save as otherwise provided" clause in Section 32(2), which gives precedence to Section 36A. Since the offences against the petitioners are punishable under Section 27(d) with imprisonment up to two years, the Magistrate's jurisdiction remains intact even after the 2009 amendment. The court also noted that the complaint was filed before the amendment came into force. The High Court distinguished the Supreme Court judgments relied upon by the APP, stating that those cases dealt with general principles of retrospective application of procedural law, which cannot override the express saving clause in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
🔒 For Members Only