Does Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act bar police investigation of offences under other laws?
Coram: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
No. Section 32(3) of the DC Act is a saving clause permitting prosecution under other laws for the same act or omission; while a police officer cannot prosecute offences exclusively under Chapter IV of the DC Act, there is no bar on investigating offences under other laws including the BNS.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — s.32 — s.32(3) — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s.173 — Copyright Act, 1957 — s.13 — s.51 — s.63 — s.65 — Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s.318(4) — FIR quashing — Section 482 — Multiplicity of FIRs — Overlapping remedies — Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — s.32(3) — Saving clause — Concurrent prosecution under other laws — Held: Section 32(3) of the DC Act is a saving clause that explicitly permits prosecution under other laws even where an FIR is registered for offences also falling under Chapter IV of the DC Act. A police officer is barred only from prosecuting Chapter IV offences exclusively triable by the Drugs Inspector, and is not barred from investigating offences under other enactments such as the BNS. (¶6) Copyright Act, 1957 — s.13(1)(a) — s.2(c) — s.51 — Doctrine of overlapping remedies — Concurrent invocation with DC Act and BNS — Held further: The Copyright Act is a special statute operating independently, and the doctrine of overlapping remedies permits its invocation simultaneously with proceedings under the DC Act and BNS where the label and packaging design of a pharmaceutical product constitutes an original artistic work under Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 2(c), so that unauthorised reproduction attracts Sections 51, 63 and 65. (¶7, 8) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s.318(4) — Dishonest inducement — Deception of consumers through counterfeit branding — Held further: Where counterfeit products bear the registered trademark and falsely represent the second respondent as manufacturer, replicating security features to deceive distributors, retailers and consumers into believing the products genuine, this constitutes dishonest inducement to deliver property by monetary benefit, attracting Section 318(4) of the BNS. (¶9, 10) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.154 — Section 482 — Multiplicity of FIRs — Quashing at threshold — Held further: Registration of a subsequent FIR based on distinct seizures, discovery of manufacturing facilities and QR-code linkage is not registration for the same occurrence as earlier FIRs, and since the FIR is not an encyclopaedia and discloses prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, the investigation cannot be interdicted at the threshold under Section 482. Petition dismissed with direction to complete investigation and file a final report within twelve weeks. (¶11, 12, 15, 16)
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of 2. Raja @ Valliappan S/o.Nachiyappan, 2nd Cross Srinivasan Nagar, Ariankuppam Commune, Puducherry v. 1. The State of Puducherry Rep by, The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India