THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MUMBAI v. SUDHA INSTANT SOFT DRINKS AND ESSENCES, NAGPUR
Scope of Magistrate's Power under Drugs and Cosmetics Act: Analysis of Accused's Control Sample by Central Drugs Laboratory Not Permissible.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:2402
Decision Date: 04-12-2025
List of Laws
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Section 397; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules
Case Brief
- Facts: A complaint was filed regarding a batch of Cephalexin Oral Suspension drug IP being unfit for human consumption. The Assistant Drug Controller, following Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, took samples from the ESI Dispensary, Verna, and sent one portion to the Government Analyst. The Government Analyst declared the sample to be not of standard quality. The Petitioner then informed the Respondent (manufacturer) and requested them to submit their say. The Respondent disagreed, claiming their tests showed the drug passed all parameters. The Petitioner then sought permission from the JMFC, Margao, to forward a portion of the sample to the Central Drug Laboratory, Kolkata, for testing. The Respondent opposed this, requesting that their control sample also be sent for testing.
- Procedural Posture: The JMFC granted the Petitioner's request but also allowed the Respondent's request to send their control sample. The Petitioner challenged this order in the Principal Sessions Court, which rejected the revision. The Petitioner then filed a Criminal Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging both the JMFC and Sessions Court orders.
- Issue: Does a Magistrate have the jurisdiction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, specifically Section 25(4), to direct the Complainant to send the control sample of a drug in the possession of the Accused for analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory?
- Holding: No, the Magistrate does not have the jurisdiction to direct the Complainant to send the Accused's control sample for analysis.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, only empowers the Magistrate to send the portion of the sample already in its possession (the second portion, as per Section 23) to the Central Drugs Laboratory for analysis. The Act does not grant the Magistrate the power to direct the analysis of any other sample, including the control sample held by the Accused. The Court emphasized that while the Accused is free to present their own evidence, including their own analyst's report and the control sample, the Magistrate's powers are limited to the sample already secured as per the procedure laid down in Section 23. The Revisional Court erred in assuming the Magistrate had discretion to order re-testing of any sample, including the Accused's control sample. The High Court quashed the orders of both the Principal Sessions Judge and the JMFC.