India’s Supreme Court of India has ruled that a pharmaceutical company accused of violating the Drugs and Cosmetics Act cannot stop criminal proceedings by using a technical legal argument.
In a significant ruling concerning prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Supreme Court of India has held that Section 36-A cannot be invoked where Section 32(2) applies, denying relief to a pharmaceutical company accused of statutory violations.
The case, MS SBS Biotech & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh, involved alleged violations of drug regulations in Himachal Pradesh.
The Court refused to grant relief to the company and allowed the prosecution to continue.
Drug authorities in Himachal Pradesh had started legal action against a pharmaceutical company for alleged violations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. This law ensures that medicines sold in India are safe, effective, and properly manufactured.
The company argued that the case against it was not legally valid because of how it was filed. It relied on a different section of the law (Section 36-A) to challenge the prosecution.
The Supreme Court said that the company’s argument was not correct.
The judges clarified that:
The case was filed under Section 32(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
When Section 32(2) applies, Section 36-A cannot be used to block or cancel the case.
Therefore, the prosecution against the company can continue.
In simple terms, the Court said the case was started properly under the law, and the company cannot use another section as a shortcut to avoid trial.
The case arose from alleged violations of provisions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by a pharmaceutical company operating in Himachal Pradesh. Authorities initiated prosecution proceedings based on regulatory findings.
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act is meant to protect patients by ensuring that:
Medicines are safe and not contaminated
Drugs are manufactured according to proper standards
Companies follow licensing and quality rules
If companies violate these rules, authorities can take legal action.
This ruling makes it clear that:
Drug regulators have the power to file cases when violations are found.
Companies cannot easily escape prosecution by raising technical objections if the case was legally initiated.
Section 32(2) explains who is allowed to file a criminal case for drug law violations.
Section 36-A deals with court procedures in certain drug-related cases.
The Supreme Court clarified that if a case is properly filed under Section 32(2), Section 36-A cannot be used to challenge it.
Section 36A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, dictates that specific, less severe offenses under the Act can be tried summarily by a Magistrate. This enables a faster, streamlined legal process for minor violations, often avoiding the lengthy, standard court procedures.
(Rh)