Allahabad HC: The court must issue notice to accused at pre-cognizance stage as per S 223 of BNSS in the case of Drugs and Cosmetics Act

A close look of the summoning order would reveal that there is no recital about the fact whether the applicants have been put to notice at the pre-cognizance stage or not. In Prateek Agarwal (supra), the following was observed.-

"8. Proviso of Sub Section (1) of Section 223 of the B.N.S.S. mandates that a Magistrate while taking cognizance of an offence, on a complaint, shall examine upon oath, the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and reduce it into writing. The Proviso further mandates that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken by the Magistrate without giving an opportunity to the accused of being heard. Section 227 of the B.N.S.S. deals with the issuance of process which is akin to Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. {Para 8}

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18480 of 2025

M/S Associated Biotech And 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Dated: September 12, 2025

Print Page

Delay, Denial, and Direct Cognizance: Why the Bombay High Court Quashed the Prosecution in C.B. Healthcare v. Union of India

 

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Ms. C.B. Healthcare and Ors. v. Union of India is a significant reminder that prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 must satisfy not only public health objectives but also the statutory safeguards built into the Act and the Rules. In a judgment delivered on 24 March 2026, Justice N.J. Jamadar quashed the criminal prosecution against the manufacturer and its partners, holding that the cumulative procedural lapses had destroyed the accused’s valuable right to challenge the analyst’s report and had rendered the continuation of prosecution an abuse of the process of court.

Facts and procedural history

Print Page

Whether drug inspector appointed under Drugs and cosmetics Act can conduct raid in respect of Ayurvedic medicine under Drugs and Magic Remedies Act?

 It is no doubt that for the offending or misleading advertisement issued by the Medical Practitioners, action is liable to be taken as per the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. But, in the instant case, whether the fourth respondent is competent and has jurisdiction to initiate action is the moot question. A perusal of the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No. 421, Health and Family Welfare (IM2(2)) Department, dated 07.11.2007 notifies that under the powers conferred by Section 33-G of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Governor of Tamil Nadu appoints the District Siddha Medical Officers of the Indian Medicine and Homeopathy Department to be Inspectors for the areas within their respective jurisdiction, for Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani Drugs. This Notification drawing powers from the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, appoints Inspectors of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani Drugs for Indian Medicine and Homeopathy Department. Chapter IV-A of the Act, specifically dedicated to Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani Medicines. The impugned advertisement was made for a medicine under the category of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani. In that event, the exclusive jurisdiction is conferred with the Drug Inspector appointed under Chapter IV-A of the Act. The Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No. 313, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 23.09.2003 reveals that the fourth respondent was appointed as a Drug Inspector under Section 21 of the Act, who is empowered to deal with the Allopathy drugs only and he is not an Inspector appointed under Chapter IV-A Section 33-G of the Act. Therefore, the fourth respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such notice. {Para 5}

7. It is also noted that the Government issued Notification in the Official Gazette for appointing Drug Inspectors of Indian Medicine District wise at the Office of the District Siddha Medical Officer. Therefore, it is very clear that the Inspectors of Allopathy medicine and Inspector of Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani are acting in different spheres exercising their powers with respect to the medicine of their respective fields. An Allopathy Doctor cannot be said to be an expert in Siddha or Ayurveda Medicine. Likewise, a Siddha Doctor cannot be an expert in respect of Allopathy medicine. The advertisement standards can be controlled only by the authorities appointed under the respective provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, if at all an action has to be initiated, it should be initiated by the Inspectors appointed under Schedule IV-A of the Act and not by an Inspector appointed under Section 21 of the Act. In view of the same, the action initiated by the fourth respondent is absolutely without jurisdiction.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

W.P. Nos. 34099 of 2012 and 45 of 2013

Decided On: 11.04.2022

V. Dharmalingam Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M. Govindaraj, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/3934/2022.

Print Page