Criminal Procedure Code for IPC offenses are not barred by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, in a case involving substandard drugs from VADSP Pharmaceuticals and forged test reports posing public health risks.
The Allahabad High Court clarified that investigations under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are not barred by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court addressed allegations of forged test lab reports, highlighting the seriousness of substandard drugs in the healthcare system and the potential threats to public health.
The case revolves around the complainant who purchased 2000 injections from VADSP Pharmaceuticals and delivered them to a hospital for sale. Subsequently, doctors raised concerns about the substandard quality of the injections, posing potential threats to children’s health. The complainant promptly retrieved the entire stock, informed the accused, and discovered that the certificates delivered with the injections falsely claimed all parameters to be correct.
ALSO READ: Allahabad HC unhappy with lawyers’ strike
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Vinod Diwakar meticulously analyzed the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, particularly focusing on Sections 16, 17, 17A, and 17B. These sections define the criteria for standard quality, misbranded, adulterated, and spurious drugs but do not address the issue of forgery.
The justices concluded,
“On giving a bird’s eye view of the ingredients of Sections 16, 17, 17A, and 17B of the Act, it would safely be concluded that these sections deal with the definition of standard quality, misbranded, adulterated and spurious drugs, not with the creation of forged documents and using as genuine. Therefore, the element of forgery could only be investigated by the police under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and not under the Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.”
This observation underscores the court’s stance that the police are empowered to investigate forgery allegations under the IPC, irrespective of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act’s provisions.
ALSO READ: Allahabad HC: Illegally obtained phone recordings admissible
Advocate Seema Singh Jadaun represented the petitioners, and G.A. Ashok Kumar Singh Bais appeared for the respondents. The Court, through its observation, highlighted that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act primarily addresses issues related to standard quality, misbranded, adulterated, and spurious drugs, not forgery and the use of forged documents. The element of forgery, the court emphasized, falls under the purview of the Indian Penal Code.
A significant public health concern, noting,
“The lack of awareness about pharmaceutical quality and origin poses serious health risks. Using expired or substandard products can lead to treatment failure and antibiotic resistance, impacting public health significantly.”
This statement reflects the broader implications of the case, emphasizing the critical need for transparency and integrity in the pharmaceutical industry to protect public health.
Further, the court clarified that while the Drugs and Cosmetics Act does not permit the prosecution of offences under Section 32 of the Act, this does not preclude police investigations into IPC offences.
ALSO READ: Allahabad High Court Mandates Police Verification for Issuing Lawyers’ Licenses
The justices stated,
“The evidence has to be gathered after a thorough investigation and shall be placed before the Court on the basis of which alone the court can come to the conclusion one way or the other on the plea of right of the complainant to register the FIR.”
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the IPC, the court has provided a clear legal framework for addressing complex cases at the intersection of pharmaceutical regulation and criminal law.
