Delhi High Court: Mere Celebration of Bail on Social Media Is Not Ground for Its Cancellation

Introduction:

In an important ruling, the Delhi High Court has made it clear that the police have no power to register an FIR (First Information Report) for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act). The Court said that only authorized officers, such as a Drugs Inspector or a Gazetted Officer, can start legal action under this law. The judgement was delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna while hearing a petition filed by Revacure Lifesciences LLP and its partners. They had asked the Court to cancel an FIR that had been registered against them on the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Background of the Case:

The complaint was filed by M/s Bhardwaj India Pvt. Ltd. against Revacure Lifesciences LLP. Revacure had supplied defective medicines, specifically Docetaxel 20 mg, which contained broken glass and visible foreign particles inside the vials, the complainant claimed.

The issue was reported to Revacure, but no action was taken, according to the complaint. These defective medicines could cause serious harm to patients, and he asked for a criminal case to be registered against the company, as the complainant alleged.

The Metropolitan Magistrate ordered the police to register an FIR, based on the complaint. The FIR included offences under: Sections 274 and 275 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&C Act).

Delhi High Court’s Findings:

The High Court agreed with the petitioners and held that the police had no authority to register an FIR or investigate for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna referred to Section 32 of the D&C Act, which clearly states that only specific authorities, like a Drugs Inspector, a Gazetted Officer, or a recognized consumer association, can start legal proceedings under this Act. Ordinary police officers do not have that power.

The Court stated: 

“The police do not have any jurisdiction to register an FIR for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Such proceedings can only be undertaken by a competent officer as defined under Section 32 of the Act.” Therefore, the Court concluded that the FIR registered under the D&C Act was invalid and without jurisdiction, and it quashed it. The High Court held that the police had no authority to register an FIR or investigate for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and agreed with the petitioners. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna referred to Section 32 of the D&C Act, which clearly states that only specific authorities such as Drugs Inspector, a Gazetted Officer, or a recognized consumer association, can start legal proceedings under this Act. Ordinary police officers do not have that power.

The Court said: 

“The police do not have any jurisdiction to register an FIR for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Such proceedings can only be undertaken by a competent officer as defined under Section 32 of the Act.”

Regarding IPC Offences:

The Court also examined whether any case was made out under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for adulteration of drugs.

After reviewing the facts, the Court found no evidence to suggest that the petitioners had deliberately adulterated or tampered with the medicines. The drugs were of standard quality when they left the company’s manufacturing unit. The contamination, if any, might have occurred during transportation or after delivery, which was beyond the control of the manufacturer.

The Court said:

“There is prima facie no offence under Section 274 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, made out against the petitioners even if all the allegations in the complaint are accepted.” 

Thus, the Court held that there was no criminal liability on the company under the IPC either. 

Delay and Limitation:

The delay in completing the investigation was one of the major issues highlighted by the court. The FIR had been registered in 2019. The investigation was still incomplete even after several years. The limitation period for filing a charge sheet in such cases is one year; under Section 468 of the CrPC, the court pointed this out. Without any valid reason, continuing an investigation after such a long delay was seen as an abuse of the process of law.

While Section 473 of the CrPC allows a court to take cognizance of an offence even after the limitation period if there is a valid reason for the delay, the Court found that no explanation had been given in this case. Hence, there is no justified investigation. 

It was observed by Justice Krishna.

“The continuation of an investigation that is hopelessly barred by limitation cannot be justified when there is no explanation for the delay.” 

 Ongoing Investigation by the Drugs Inspector:

The Court also noted that a Drugs Inspector in Karnataka had already started a separate inquiry under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, about the same allegations. This showed that the proper legal process was already underway by the competent authority, and there was no need for the police to interfere.

Court’s Final Decision:

After reviewing all aspects, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR completely. 

The Court ruled that: The police had no power to register or investigate offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. There was no evidence of any offence under the Indian Penal Code.

The investigation was barred by limitation and continuing it would be an abuse of the legal process.

The Court held that keeping such proceedings alive would not serve the ends of justice. The petitioners were represented by Advocate Aditya Singh Deshwal, and APP Utkarsh appeared on behalf of the State.

Way Forward:

The laws, like the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, must be followed strictly as written; this judgement set a reminder for special laws like this. The Act gives specific powers to designated officers, not the police, to handle cases related to drugs and cosmetics.

The Delhi High Court protected the legal safeguards meant to ensure that only qualified and authorized officials handle such sensitive cases by setting aside the FIR. This ruling will help prevent misuse of police powers and ensure that investigations into drug-related matters are carried out in a fair, lawful, and specialized manner.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now