Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 11.11.2026
Karnataka HC: Section 258 CrPC Cannot Halt Complaint-Based Drug Prosecution
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 9845906418 and email id sriadv3@gmail.com .
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a criminal petition by J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and its officers seeking to stop proceedings over alleged violations of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, holding that Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) could not be invoked in a case initiated on a complaint.
Background of the case
The proceedings concern the medicine βDilcardia 30.β On 8 March 2011, a Drug Inspector collected a sample from the premises of the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) and sent it to the Central Drugs Laboratory in Kolkata for testing and analysis.
Following the analystβs report, the Drug Inspector initiated proceedings alleging offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case involved allegations relating to the sale of a drug said to be in breach of statutory quality and regulatory requirements, including Sections 17(b), 18(a)(i), 27(d), and 32(1) of the Act.
The accused included J.B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., its then Chairman and Managing Director, its erstwhile Executive Director for Technical and Production, and an authorised signatory died during the course of the litigation.
Earlier challenges to cognizance
The company and its officers had previously challenged the trial courtβs decision to take cognizance of the complaint. In that earlier challenge, the High Court held that disputes over the accuracy and reliability of the chemical-analysis material could not be decided at the preliminary stage and would need to be tested during a full trial before the Special Court for Economic Offences.
The Supreme Court did not interfere with that decision. It granted the then Chairman and Managing Director an exemption from personal appearance because of his age and health condition, while requiring his appearance for examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
The application to stop proceedings
After the earlier challenge failed, the petitioners sought to stop the prosecution under Section 258 of the CrPC. That provision permits a magistrate to stop proceedings in certain summons cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint. Depending on the stage of the case, such stoppage can result in either acquittal or discharge.
The trial court rejected the application, finding that the case had been instituted on a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC. The revisional court subsequently held that the revision petition was not maintainable and also referred to procedural issues arising from the death of the companyβs former managing director.
Petitionersβ arguments
The petitioners argued that the prosecution was based on a report by a Drug Inspector under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, rather than a conventional private complaint. They contended that such a report should be treated similarly to a police report, which would allow the use of Section 258.
They also challenged the underlying laboratory analysis, alleging that the testing methodology was improper and that other material had effectively cleared the product. According to the petitioners, the lower courts had failed to properly assess these issues before allowing the prosecution to continue.
High Courtβs reasoning
Justice rejected the argument that the Drug Inspectorβs report could be treated as a police report. The Court noted that the prosecution was initiated through a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC and that cognizance had been taken on that basis.
The Court held that Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires that a prosecution be instituted by an Inspector, but this does not change the character of the proceeding into one initiated on a police report. Since Section 258 applies only to summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, it was unavailable to the petitioners.
The Court also stressed that the validity of the cognizance order had already been examined by the High Court and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. Reopening the same issue through the High Courtβs inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC was therefore unwarranted.
Outcome and legal significance
The High Court found no defect in the orders of either the trial court or the revisional court and dismissed the criminal petition.
The ruling reinforces two procedural principles:
- Section 258 CrPC has limited scope: It cannot be used to halt a summons case that was instituted on a complaint.
- Drug Inspector complaints remain complaints: A prosecution initiated by a Drug Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not automatically become equivalent to a police-report case merely because the Inspector is a statutory authority.
The decision leaves the underlying prosecution pending before the Special Court for Economic Offences, where factual disputes over the drug analysis and the alleged statutory violations must be addressed through the trial process.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Karnataka High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply