NDPS prosecution quashed where codeine content complied with permissible standards and the drug licence was timely renewed.

On 25 July 2025, during vehicle-checking duty, police officers of Baijalbari Police Station intercepted vehicle No. TR05F1685 and allegedly recovered 1,200 bottles of Broncof-C cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride.

Two persons found in the vehicle were arrested, and the vehicle, mobile phones and related documents were seized.

The seized substances were allegedly intended to be delivered to the petitioner, Sri Chinmoy Debnath, who was connected with M/s Swapna Pharmax.

Baijalbari P.S. Case No. 2025 BJB 002 was registered under Sections 21(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, followed by a charge-sheet against the petitioner under the NDPS Act and Sections 177/192(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS, contending that the Codeine content was within the permissible statutory standard and that his drug licence stood validly renewed upon payment of the retention fee and late fee.

Whether the analyst’s finding of 10.024 mg of Codeine Phosphate per 5 ml established that the cough syrup exceeded the permissible standard so as to attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Whether the petitioner possessed a valid drug licence on the date of the alleged offence, having deposited the licence-retention fee and applicable late fee within the period permitted by Rule 63(3) of the Drugs Rules, 1945.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings and charge-sheet against the petitioner warranted exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to examine whether continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner was legally sustainable.

It considered Sections 21(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, as invoked in the charge-sheet, and the prosecution’s reliance on Section 80 of the NDPS Act to contend that the Drugs and Cosmetics law did not exclude application of the NDPS Act.

Under Section 124-B of the Drugs Rules, 1945, patent or proprietary medicines must comply with the standards in Schedule V.

Schedule V prescribes that the content of active ingredients, other than vitamins, enzymes and antibiotics, must be between 90% and 110% of the labelled content.

Rule 63 provides that a drug licence remains valid upon payment of the licence-retention fee; where payment is delayed, the licensee may pay the retention fee with a late fee at the prescribed rate within six months, failing which the licence is deemed cancelled.

The analyst reported Codeine Phosphate at 10.024 mg per 5 ml, which the Court calculated as 100.24% of the labelled content.

Since this fell within the permissible range of 90% to 110% under Schedule V read with Rule 124-B, the Court held that the prosecution could not lawfully treat the product as exceeding the applicable standard merely because the figure was marginally above 10 mg.

On the licensing issue, the Court accepted that although the licence was stated to have expired in March 2025, the petitioner deposited the renewal or retention fee, together with the applicable late fee, within the six-month period contemplated by Rule 63(3), and the payment was verified by the Drugs Inspector on 19 April 2025.

The subsequent cancellation letter dated 2 August 2025 did not address or account for that payment.

In the Court’s view, the prosecution had failed to satisfactorily rebut the petitioner’s case that the licence was capable of renewal under Rule 63.

Consequently, the essential basis of the prosecution against the petitioner—non-compliant Codeine content and absence of a valid drug licence—was found unsustainable.

It held that the Codeine content of 10.024 mg per 5 ml was within the permissible 90%–110% range and that the petitioner had deposited the requisite licence-retention fee and late fee within the period allowed by Rule 63(3) of the Drugs Rules, 1945.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was accordingly allowed, and the proceedings and charge-sheet against the petitioner in Baijalbari P.S. Case No. 2025 BJB 002, including the charges under Sections 21(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, were quashed.

The petitioner was discharged and his surety, if any, was discharged.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed against the remaining accused persons in accordance with law.