Promotional supply of physician samples to medical representatives is not a sale under drug-licensing conditions.

The respondent filed a complaint alleging contraventions of Sections 18(c) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), 28 and 27(d), arising from physician samples found at a medical representative’s residence.

The complaint alleged that the samples had been supplied without the recipient holding a drug licence and that distribution records had not been maintained.

The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 2787 of 2025, after the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons.

The petitioners maintained that the samples were supplied for medical campaigning and promotional purposes, not for sale, and relied on the delivery challan and company policy.

Whether the alleged supply and possession of physician samples, on the facts pleaded, prima facie constituted offences under Sections 18(c) and 18A of the Act and the relevant licence conditions.

Whether the sanction for prosecution and the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance were legally sustainable in the absence of reasoned consideration of the relevant materials.

Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibits the manufacture for sale or distribution, sale, stocking, exhibiting or offering for sale, or distribution of a drug except under and in accordance with the requisite licence; Section 27(d) prescribes punishment for contraventions of Chapter IV or the Rules.

Conditions 3(ii) of Form 20B and 4(ii) of Form 21B restrict sale of drugs to persons who do not hold the requisite licence; the Court construed these conditions as requiring a sale, rather than every supply or transfer, irrespective of its purpose.

Rule 65(18) of the Drugs Rules, 1945 regulates physician samples and requires them to be labelled “Not for Sale”.

The Court also applied the principle that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the complaint and supporting materials before taking cognizance and issuing process.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The Court found that the complaint and seizure materials described the drugs as physician samples marked “Not for Sale” and that the prosecution’s own case was that they had been supplied to a medical representative for promotional and medical-information purposes.

In the absence of material showing a sale to an unlicensed person, mere possession of those samples did not prima facie establish a contravention of Section 18(c) or the relevant licence conditions.

The Court further held that the sanctioning authority had merely rejected the explanations as unsatisfactory without addressing them, and that the Magistrate’s brief cognizance order did not show discernible application of judicial mind to the allegations or materials.

It also noted that the accused had not been given an opportunity to present their case before cognizance was taken.

It quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 2787 of 2025, insofar as they concerned the petitioners, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.