M/S SBS BIOTECH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Limitation and Jurisdiction in Drugs and Cosmetics Act Prosecutions: Applicability of Three-Year Limitation for Record-Keeping Violations and Validity of Committal to Sessions Court.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 171
Decision Date: 20-02-2026
List of Laws
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (Limitation); Schedule M and Schedule U (Good Manufacturing Practices)
- Facts: The appellants, a pharmaceutical firm and its officials, were prosecuted following an inspection by a Drug Inspector in July 2014. The inspection revealed non-maintenance of requisite records for the drug Pseudoephedrine, in violation of Schedule M and Schedule U of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Subsequent re-inspections alleged record tampering and failure to produce consumption data. A criminal complaint was filed in February 2017 alleging contraventions of Sections 18(a)(vi), 18-B, and 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28-A. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in April 2017 and later committed the case to the Special Judge/Sessions Court. The appellants challenged these orders, arguing that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and that the committal was illegal as the offences should be tried summarily by a Magistrate.
- Procedural Posture: The appellants filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh to quash the complaint and the cognizance order. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the limitation period was three years and the Special Court had jurisdiction. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition.
- Issue: Whether a complaint for non-maintenance of records under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is barred by a one-year limitation period, and whether such offences must be tried by a Magistrate or a Court of Session/Special Court.
- Holding: No, the complaint is not time-barred, and the committal to the Sessions/Special Court was valid.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 18(a)(vi) prohibits the manufacture or sale of drugs in contravention of any rules, including record-keeping rules. Such contravention is punishable under Section 27(d) with imprisonment up to two years. Under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., the limitation for an offence punishable with imprisonment between one and three years is three years. Since the complaint was filed within two and a half years of the inspection, it was within time. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court noted that Section 32(2) of the Act mandates that no court inferior to a Court of Session shall try offences under Chapter IV unless otherwise provided. Section 36-A, which allows summary trials by Magistrates, specifically excludes offences triable by Special Courts or Courts of Session. Thus, for Chapter IV offences where the punishment exceeds one year or is specifically committed, the Sessions Court has jurisdiction.
🔒 For Members Only