Sessions Court Cannot Take Cognisance Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act

In M/s. C.B. Healthcare & Ors. v. Union of India (2026), the Court held that a Sessions Court does not have the authority to take direct cognisance of

Sessions Court Cannot Take Cognisance Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act: Detailed Case Analysis (2026)

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court clarified an important procedural issue concerning criminal trials under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

In M/s. C.B. Healthcare & Ors. v. Union of India (2026), the Court held that a Sessions Court does not have the authority to take direct cognisance of offences under the Act unless the case has first been committed to it by a Magistrate.

This decision reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal law and emphasizes that statutory requirements cannot be bypassed, even in regulatory offences.

---

Background of the Case

The facts of the case reveal a sequence of procedural irregularities that ultimately led to the quashing of criminal proceedings.

A Drugs Inspector collected a sample from a government hospital store in 2016. Upon analysis, the sample was reported to be “not of standard quality.” Following the necessary sanction, a complaint was filed before a Special Judge at Silvassa, who is essentially a Sessions Court.

However, instead of following the established criminal procedure, the Special Judge directly took cognisance of the offence and issued process against the accused.

The petitioners challenged this action before the Bombay High Court on the ground that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to take direct cognisance without committal by a Magistrate.

In addition to jurisdictional objections, the petitioners also pointed out several procedural violations, including delay in testing the sample and denial of the opportunity for reanalysis.

---

Key Legal Issue

The central legal question before the Court was whether a Sessions Court can directly take cognisance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 without the case being committed by a Magistrate.

---

Court’s Analysis on Cognisance

The Court examined the interplay between the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and general criminal procedure laws, particularly the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 193 of the CrPC, now reflected in Section 213 of the BNSS, clearly provides that a Court of Session cannot take cognisance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate.

The Court emphasized that this is a foundational principle of criminal procedure. Sessions Courts derive their jurisdiction only through the committal process, and any deviation from this requirement renders the proceedings legally unsustainable.

---

Interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Act

Section 32(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act states that offences under Chapter IV shall be tried by a Court not inferior to a Court of Session.

The respondents argued that this provision implied that a Sessions Court could directly take cognisance of such offences.

However, the Court rejected this interpretation. It clarified that Section 32(2) only determines the level of court competent to try the offence and does not create an exception to the general rule requiring committal.

In the absence of any express provision allowing direct cognisance, the bar under Section 193 CrPC continues to apply.

---

Effect of Special Court Notification

Another argument advanced by the respondents was based on the notification designating a Special Court to try such offences.

The Court held that merely designating a Special Court does not override the requirement of committal. Unless the statute explicitly authorizes such a court to take direct cognisance, the general procedural framework must be followed.

Thus, the Special Court, being a Sessions Court in essence, could not assume jurisdiction without committal.

---

Procedural Lapses Identified by the Court

Apart from the jurisdictional defect, the Court also identified serious procedural lapses that further weakened the prosecution’s case.

First, there was a significant delay in testing the drug sample, which violated Rule 45 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Timely testing is crucial to ensure fairness and accuracy in prosecution.

Second, the authorities failed to send a portion of the sample to the manufacturer. This deprived the accused of their statutory right to seek reanalysis, which is a critical safeguard in such cases.

Third, by the time the complaint was filed, the shelf life of the drug had expired. As a result, even if reanalysis had been requested, it would have been impossible to conduct, rendering the right entirely illusory.

---

Abuse of Process of Law

The Court held that the cumulative effect of these procedural lapses amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

Criminal prosecution must be conducted fairly and in strict compliance with statutory provisions. When authorities fail to follow mandatory procedures, the continuation of such proceedings becomes unjust and oppressive.

On this ground, along with the jurisdictional error, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

---

Understanding Section 213 of BNSS

Section 213 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to Section 193 of the CrPC. It establishes that a Sessions Court cannot take cognisance directly and must rely on committal by a Magistrate.

This provision ensures a structured criminal process, where the Magistrate acts as a preliminary filter before cases reach the Sessions Court.

---

Overview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is a comprehensive legislation enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs and cosmetics in India.

Its primary objective is to ensure that drugs available to the public are safe, effective, and of standard quality.

The Act is administered by regulatory authorities such as the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation and state drug control departments.

It contains detailed provisions relating to licensing, manufacturing standards, inspection powers, and penalties for violations.

---

Important Provisions Relevant to the Case

Section 18 of the Act prohibits the manufacture and sale of drugs that are misbranded, adulterated, or in violation of prescribed standards.

Section 27 provides for penalties for various offences, including imprisonment for violations of statutory provisions.

Section 27(d), in particular, deals with contravention of Chapter IV and prescribes imprisonment ranging from one year to two years.

Section 32(2) mandates that such offences are to be tried only by a Court of Session.

---

Legal Significance of the Judgment

This judgment has far-reaching implications for criminal law and regulatory enforcement.

It reiterates that procedural compliance is not a mere technicality but a fundamental requirement of justice.

The decision also protects the rights of accused persons by ensuring that they are not subjected to arbitrary or flawed prosecutions.

For regulatory authorities, it serves as a reminder that strict adherence to statutory procedures is essential for sustaining criminal cases.

---

Conclusion

The decision in M/s. C.B. Healthcare & Ors. v. Union of India (2026) is a crucial reaffirmation of procedural law principles.

It makes it clear that even in cases involving public health and drug regulation, courts will not permit shortcuts in legal procedure.

The requirement of committal by a Magistrate is mandatory, and failure to comply with it strikes at the root of jurisdiction.

Additionally, procedural lapses such as delay in testing and denial of reanalysis rights can render an entire prosecution invalid.

The judgment ultimately underscores a fundamental principle of criminal justice: fairness, due process, and adherence to law are indispensable, regardless of the nature of the offence.