Chapter IV drug prosecutions require an authorized complaint, not a police charge sheet.

On 24 July 2007, a Drug Inspector reported that a raid at the petitioner’s medical store uncovered, among other items, expired medicines, medicines requiring refrigeration, and an empty Morphine bottle.

Police registered a case under Section 420 IPC, Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, and provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. After investigation, the police dropped the IPC and NDPS allegations and submitted a charge sheet only under Sections 18, 18(A), 18(B), and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; the court took cognizance on that report.

The petitioner’s discharge application was rejected by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas, on 6 May 2016. He sought to quash that order and the consequential proceedings, contending that a police report could not institute prosecution for the charged offences under the Act.

Whether prosecution for the alleged offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act could proceed on a police FIR and charge sheet, rather than a complaint by an authorised person under Section 32.

Whether, in light of the charge sheet’s omission of the IPC and NDPS offences and the materials concerning the seized medicines, continuation of the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as applied in the judgment, bars cognizance of an offence under Chapter IV except on a complaint by an authorised Drug Inspector or other designated authority.

Relying on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674, the Court stated that police cannot use the ordinary CrPC process to register, investigate, and submit a charge sheet for offences strictly within Chapter IV, circumventing the special procedure under Section 32.

The Court also referred to the quashing principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

In discussing the seized stock, it referred to Section 18(a)(i), Section 17A, Rules 96 and 65(17), and Schedules P and P-1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, including the distinction between expired stock kept for sale and stock segregated for return or authorised disposal.

The charge sheet and cognizance concerned only offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, while the police had dropped the IPC and NDPS allegations. The Court held that, once only Chapter IV offences remained, prosecution by police report did not satisfy Section 32’s complaint requirement, making cognizance on that report legally defective.

It further noted that no Morphine was recovered, only an empty bottle, and treated the NDPS allegation as no longer part of the prosecution.

The Court also considered the statutory treatment of expired medicines and the possibility that such stock had been segregated for return or disposal.

On the facts and the cited authorities, it concluded that continuing the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.