Madras High Court
M/S. Sri Ram Healthcare Pvt Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By on 19 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.No. 11445 of 2025
1. M/S. Sri Ram Healthcare Pvt Ltd.,
81-C/2, EPIP-I, Jhamazri, Baddl, Distt.
Solan H.P.173205,
Represented By Mr.Banshidharkanhaiyalaal,
Director cum Authorized Signatory of the Firm,
Mr.Mulidhar Kanhaiyalal
Director cum Authorized Signatory of the Firm.
2. Banshidharkanhaiyalaal
Director cum Authorized Signatory Of
M/S.Sri Ram Healthcare Pvt Ltd.,
81-C/2, EPIP-I, Jhamazri, Baddl, Distt.
Solan H.P.173205.
3. Murlidharkanhaiyalal
Director cum Authorized Signatory of
M/S.Sri Ram Healthcare Pvt Ltd.,
81-C/2, EPIP-I, Jhamazri, Baddl, Distt.
Solan H.P.173205. ..... Petitioners
Vs
State of Tamil Nadu Represented By,
Drugs Inspector Udumalpet Range,
Office of the Drugs Inspector,
Coimbatore South Zone-219,
Coimbatore-18. ..... Respondents
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 & 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to set aside the order dated
07.06.2023 in PRC No.43 of 2022 on the file Chief Judicial Magistrate at
Tiruppur.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sudhakar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal revision petition has been filed to set aside the
order dated 07.06.2023 passed in P.R.C.No.43 of 2022 by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.
2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, learned
counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order
passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9010 of 2023,
dated 11.01.2024, wherein a similar issue has been considered and
orders/clarifications have been passed and, therefore, submits that the
benefit of the said order may be given to the petitioner as well.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for
the respondents fairly conceded that the relief sought for is squarely
covered by the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.9010 of 2023 and, therefore,
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
similar order may be passed.
4. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the order
passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9010 of 2023 dated 11.01.2024 relied
upon the learned counsel for the petitioners is extracted hereunder:-
“3. The Court below had taken cognizance of the
complaint filed by the respondent for offences under
Section 18(c) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the Act). After having
taken cognizance, the Court below took note of Section 32
of the Act and came to the conclusion that the offences
are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions in view of
Section 32(2) of the Act and hence, decided to commit the
case before the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved by that, the
petitioner is before this Court.
4. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing
charges for an offence under Section 27(d) of the Act,
which is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of two
years and with fine. This offence comes within the scope
of Section 36A of the Act. However, the Court below came
to the conclusion that by virtue of Section 32 of the Act,
the case should be tried only by the Court of Sessions.
5. Such a finding rendered by the Court below is
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025not sustainable in view of the clarifications issued in the
recent judgment rendered by me in Crl.O.P.No.13125 of
2022 dated 04.1.2024 wherein the relevant portions read
thus :
“3. Chapter IV of the Act covers the provisions
which provides for the Courts which can take
cognizance of the offence and deal with the
case. Section 32 of the Act deals with
cognizance of offences and Section 32(2) of the
Act is extracted hereunder:
32.Cognizance of offences.
..
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no
Court inferior to that of a Court of Session try
an offence punishable under this Chapter.
4. It is clear from the above provision that no
Court inferior to that of a Court of Session can
try any offence punishable under Chapter IV,
save as otherwise provided in the Act. This
would mean that if there is any other provision
under the Act which enables some other Court
to try the offence, Section 32(2) of the Act will
have to yield to that provision.
5. The other provisions which have to be taken
into consideration are Sections 36A and 36AB.
Section 36A deals with certain offences which
can be tried summarily. This provision was
brought in through an amendment made by Act
68 of 1982 which came into effect from
01.02.1983. The provision itself start with a
non-obstante clause and its states that the
offences punishable with imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years, other than an
offence under Clause(b) of Sub-section (1) of
33-I, can be tried in a summary manner by a
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
Judicial Magistrate of the first class especially
empowered in this regard by the State
Government or by a Metropolitan Magistrate.
The provision also makes it clear that the
Magistrate Court must follow the provisions of
Sections 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C., while
conducting the summary proceedings.
6. It is quite apparent from the above provision
that Section 36A is one exception to Section
32(2) of the Act. Whatever offences fall within
the scope of Section 36A can be dealt with by
means of summary proceedings by the Judicial
Magistrate of first class especially empowered
by the State Government or by any
Metropolitan Magistrate. Paragraph 15 of the
order does not deal with cases of this nature
and it is made clear that the cases which falls
within the scope of Section 36A will be tried
only by the notified Judicial Magistrate of first
class or by any Metropolitan Magistrate and it
does not require any committal to the Sessions
Court.
7. The Second category which is also an
exception to Section 32(2) of the Act are those
cases which are falling under Section 36AB.
This provision was brought into force through
Act 26 of 2008 w.e.f.,10.08.2009. There are
certain specified offences relating to
adulterated drugs or spurious drugs which can
be tried before the Special Courts. Such Special
Courts must be constituted / designated
by a notification by the Central Government or
the State Government in consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court. Wherever, such
Special Court is constituted and the offences
contemplated under Section 36AB is committed,
it can be tried only before the Special Court.
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
8. To make it more clearer, only those cases
which do not fall within the scope of Section
36A and Section 36AB, will come within the
scope of Section 32(2) of the Act. Only such
cases can be tried by the Court of Sessions as
contemplated under Section 32(2) of the Act.
This clarification will sufficiently take care of
the prevailing confusion and a copy of this
order shall be marked to the Principal District
Judges across the State of Tamil Nadu. The
cases shall be taken cognizance by the
concerned Courts in line with the clarification
issued in this order.”
6. In light of the above clarifications issued in the
said order dated 04.1.2024, this criminal original petition
is allowed and the order passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur dated 27.2.2023 is hereby
set aside. The matter shall be tried in line with Section
36A of the Act and the proceedings shall be completed by
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as expeditiously as
possible. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
petition is closed.”
5. In light of the above, following the aforesaid decision, this
Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 07.06.2023
passed in P.R.C.No.43 of 2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruppur, hereby set aside in line with the order passed in the aforesaid
decision. However, it is open to the respondent to proceed in the matter
against the petitioners in the manner known to law, as provided for in the
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
aforesaid decision. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is
closed.
19.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
Lpp
To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur
2. The Drugs Inspector Udumalpet Range,
Office of the Drugs Inspector,
Coimbatore South Zone-219,
Coimbatore-18.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
Crl.R.C.No.825 of 2025
19.06.2025
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:40 pm )