The Bombay High Court has delivered a decisive clarification on the procedural boundaries of prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, affirming that police authorities lack the legal authority to register FIRs for offences falling under Chapter-IV of the Act. This ruling reinforces the legislative intent that only designated Drug Inspectors may initiate prosecution, thereby preventing misuse of criminal process by non-competent agencies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Bipin Gopaldas Taori, proprietor of M/s. Taori Medical Store in Akot, was named in an FIR registered by the Akot Police Station following a raid conducted by the Food and Drug Administration. The raid, orchestrated by a dummy patient, allegedly resulted in the purchase of pills containing Mifepristone and Misoprostol - ingredients used for medical termination of pregnancy - from a person named Pankaj Taori. The pills were seized and sent for analysis, confirming their composition. The FIR invoked multiple statutes, including Sections 18(c), 18A, and 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Procedural History
- 3 July 2025: Raid conducted by Food and Drug Administration officials with a dummy patient
- 13 August 2025: Drug Inspector lodged complaint with Akot Police Station
- 2025: FIR No. 284/2025 registered by police against applicant and co-accused Pankaj Taori
- 2025: Criminal Application filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR
- 13 February 2026: Bombay High Court heard arguments and delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the FIR on grounds that: (1) he had no involvement in the alleged sale; (2) the seizure lacked compliance with statutory procedures; (3) police had no jurisdiction to register or investigate offences under Chapter-IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; and (4) no nexus existed between him and the person who sold the pills.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a police officer may register an FIR and initiate investigation under the CrPC for offences under Chapter-IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, or whether Section 32 of the Act exclusively vests prosecutorial authority in Drug Inspectors and other specified authorities.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned Senior Counsel A.A. Naik contended that Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, explicitly restricts the institution of prosecution to four categories: (i) Drug Inspector, (ii) authorized gazetted officer, (iii) aggrieved person, or (iv) recognized consumer association. Police officers are not included. He relied on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma (2021) 12 SCC 674, where the Supreme Court held that police have no power to investigate or file FIRs for offences under Chapter-IV. He further argued that the seizure was non-compliant with Section 23 of the Act, which mandates strict procedural adherence by Inspectors, and that no evidence linked the applicant to the transaction, as Pankaj Taori himself disclaimed any association with the medical store.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the complaint from the Assistant Commissioner triggered a legitimate investigation, and that the police were merely acting on information received. He contended that the sale of MTP kits is a serious offence and that police intervention was necessary for public interest. He did not dispute the statutory framework but argued that the FIR was a procedural formality and that the investigation could proceed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and its interaction with Section 190 of the CrPC. It emphasized that Section 32 is a special provision that overrides the general provisions of the CrPC regarding cognizance and investigation. The Legislature, by excluding police officers from the list of persons authorized to institute prosecution, clearly intended to channel enforcement through qualified Drug Inspectors who possess technical expertise in pharmaceutical regulation.
"The Inspector is, undoubtedly, endowed with the power of inspection, taking samples of any drug or cosmetic, searching any person, searching any place, searching any vehicle, examining records, registers, documents and other material objects and seizing the same..."
The Court noted that Section 23 prescribes the exclusive procedure for Inspectors to follow during raids and seizures, including the requirement to issue receipts, preserve samples, and forward reports to the Government Analyst. The police, lacking these statutory powers and procedural safeguards, cannot replicate or substitute the Inspector’s role. The Court further observed that Section 32(3) permits concurrent prosecution under other laws only if the act or omission also constitutes an offence under those laws - but this does not empower police to initiate proceedings under Chapter-IV.
The Court distinguished the present case from situations where police investigate offences under other statutes, such as the MTP Act, where jurisdiction may overlap. However, for offences under Chapter-IV of the D.C. Act, the statutory scheme is exclusive. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Kumar Sharma was binding and directly applicable. The Court held that allowing police to register FIRs under Chapter-IV would render Section 32 otiose and undermine the legislative design.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court held that Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 vests exclusive authority to prosecute offences under Chapter-IV in Drug Inspectors and other specified authorities, and that police officers have no power to register FIRs or investigate such offences. The FIR was quashed in its entirety.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prosecution Must Originate from Authorized Authority
- Practitioners must challenge any FIR registered by police for offences under Chapter-IV of the D.C. Act as legally void ab initio
- Applications under Section 482 CrPC should be filed immediately upon notice of such FIRs
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove that the complaint was filed by a competent authority under Section 32
Evidence Collected by Police Is Inadmissible for Chapter-IV Offences
- Any seizure, sample collection, or report prepared by police without Inspector involvement lacks statutory validity
- Defence counsel should move to exclude such evidence as non-compliant with Section 23 and Section 32
- Government Analyst reports obtained without proper chain of custody under D.C. Act rules are vulnerable to challenge
Police May Assist, But Not Initiate
- Police may assist Drug Inspectors in raids under mutual coordination, but cannot lead investigations
- FIRs registered by police must be transferred immediately to the concerned Drug Inspector
- Courts may direct transfer of pending investigations under Article 142 to ensure compliance with statutory mandates
