The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674 settled a long-contested question: police officers cannot register FIRs or independently investigate Chapter IV offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Cognizance of these offences can be taken by a court only upon a complaint by a Drug Inspector, an aggrieved person, a recognised consumer association, or an authorised Gazetted Officer — not on a police report. This article analyses the Ashok Kumar Sharma ruling, traces the legal basis for this exclusion in Section 32, examines the consequences for ongoing prosecutions initiated on police FIRs, contrasts the D&C Act regime with the NDPS Act (where police do have FIR powers), and provides practical guidance for challenge and quashing.

INTRODUCTION

Police officers in India routinely respond to reports of spurious or substandard drugs by registering FIRs under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On the surface, this appears logical: drug offences involve criminal liability, and the police are the general criminal law enforcement agency. The reality, however, is that the D&C Act creates a self-contained prosecutorial architecture that deliberately excludes the police from complaint-filing authority.

This exclusion has profound practical consequences. Every prosecution initiated on a police FIR under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act — rather than on a Drug Inspector’s complaint — is legally defective and liable to be quashed. Courts across India have done precisely this, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Kumar Sharma.

Yet the error persists. Police continue to file FIRs; Drug Inspectors sometimes refer cases to the police rather than filing complaints themselves; and accused persons are arrested, investigated, and prosecuted through a procedure that the Supreme Court has invalidated. This article aims to eliminate this confusion.

SECTION 32: THE EXCLUSIVE COGNIZANCE PROVISION

Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is the exclusive gateway for judicial cognizance of Chapter IV offences. It provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under Chapter IV or Chapter IVA except:
(i) On a complaint made by a person authorised by the Central Government or State Government by general or special order; OR
(ii) On a complaint made by the person aggrieved; OR
(iii) On a complaint made by a recognised consumer association; OR
(iv) In case of cognizable offences, on a complaint made by a Drug Inspector.

A police report is conspicuously absent from this list. The Act’s drafters made a deliberate choice: prosecution of drug quality offences requires specialist investigation, technical understanding of pharmaceutical standards, and custody of legally collected samples — capabilities invested in the Drug Inspector, not in the general police force.

A court that takes cognizance of a Chapter IV offence on a police FIR rather than one of the Section 32-prescribed complaints is acting without jurisdiction. The defect is fundamental, not curable by amendment of the charge sheet or subsequent involvement of the Drug Inspector.

UNION OF INDIA v. ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA: THE DEFINITIVE RULING

The facts of Ashok Kumar Sharma arose from the seizure of a stock of unlicensed drugs from M/s. Sharda Narayan Clinic and Pharmacy in Uttar Pradesh. A Drug Inspector filed an FIR with the local police station for violation of Section 18(a)(i) read with Section 27 of the Act. The accused filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court for quashing of the FIR and protection from arrest.

The High Court, referring to Sections 22, 23, 25, 27, and 32 of the Act, observed that the Act lays down a complete code for trial of offences. Section 32 authorises only the Drug Inspector (and specified others) for launching prosecution. The Inspector should not have lodged an FIR and authorised the police to investigate. The FIR was quashed.

The Supreme Court affirmed. In its ruling reported as Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674, the Court held that prosecution for cognizable offences under the Act initiated solely by a police officer based on the FIR they filed was not legally sustainable. The Act is a complete code; police investigation and FIR filing are not part of that code for Chapter IV offences.

CONSEQUENCES FOR ONGOING POLICE-INITIATED PROSECUTIONS

The practical consequence of Ashok Kumar Sharma is significant for any prosecution that was initiated on a police FIR rather than a Drug Inspector complaint:

First, the accused can file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. The ground: the FIR was lodged contrary to the scheme of Section 32 of the Act.

Second, the accused can seek anticipatory bail, relying on Ashok Kumar Sharma to argue that the investigation itself is without legal authority — weakening the prosecution’s case for custodial interrogation.

Third, even if a charge sheet has been filed and the Magistrate has taken cognizance, the proceedings can be challenged by way of revision or writ, as cognizance taken on an invalid FIR/charge sheet is itself jurisdictionally infirm.

Fourth, any evidence collected by police during the investigation of a Chapter IV offence — which investigation they had no authority to conduct — is of questionable admissibility.

CONTRAST WITH THE NDPS ACT

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) provides an instructive contrast. Under the NDPS Act, police officers are specifically designated as ‘officers’ authorised to make arrests, conduct searches, and file FIRs. Section 42 of the NDPS Act empowers any Gazetted Officer or Sub-Inspector of police to enter, search, seize, and arrest without warrant.

The reason for this difference is conceptual: the NDPS Act targets trafficking and possession — criminal activities detected through intelligence, surveillance, and physical interdiction, tasks suited to the police. The D&C Act targets quality failures in manufactured products — detected through laboratory testing of collected samples, tasks requiring specialist technical authority.

Confusing these two regimes is a common source of error. Police who seize drugs at a medical store and register an FIR under the D&C Act are applying an NDPS-style response to a D&C Act situation — procedurally incorrect and legally vulnerable.

CONCLUSION

Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act creates a complaint-based prosecution architecture that excludes the police from FIR filing for Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 offences. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ashok Kumar Sharma makes this exclusion unambiguous and judicially enforceable. Every FIR filed by a police officer for a Chapter IV of Drugs and Cosmetics Act offence — however well-intentioned — is legally defective.

For defence counsel, this ruling provides a powerful tool: any existing prosecution based on a police FIR is vulnerable to quashing at every stage — before charge sheet, after charge sheet, and even after cognizance — as the foundational instrument of prosecution is void. Counsel should routinely check the origin of any D&C Act prosecution to identify this ground.

FAQs: 

1. Can police register an FIR for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?
No. As clarified by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, police officers cannot register FIRs or independently investigate Chapter IV offences under the Act.

2. Who is authorised to initiate prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act?
Under Section 32 of the Act, prosecution can only be initiated through a complaint filed by:

• A Drug Inspector
• An authorised government officer
• The aggrieved person
• A recognised consumer association

3. Can a court take cognizance based on a police charge sheet?
No. A court cannot take cognizance of Chapter IV offences on the basis of a police report or charge sheet. Cognizance is valid only when based on a complaint as prescribed under Section 32.

4. What happens if an FIR has already been registered by the police?
Such an FIR is legally defective and can be challenged. The accused may file a writ petition before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

5. Is the defect of a police-initiated FIR curable later?
No. This is a jurisdictional defect. It cannot be cured by later filing of a complaint or by involving a Drug Inspector after the FIR has been registered.

6. Can police assist in drug-related investigations at all?
Police may assist in maintaining law and order or in executing search/seizure operations when required, but they cannot independently initiate prosecution under Chapter IV of the Act.

7. How is the Drugs and Cosmetics Act different from the NDPS Act in this context?
Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, police officers are expressly empowered to register FIRs, investigate offences, and make arrests. This is not the case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

8. Can an accused seek anticipatory bail in such cases?
Yes. The accused can rely on the Ashok Kumar Sharma ruling to argue that the investigation itself is without authority, strengthening their case for anticipatory bail.

9. What is the remedy after cognizance has already been taken by a Magistrate?
Even after cognizance, the accused can challenge the proceedings through revision or a writ petition, as the initial FIR itself is void.

10. Why does the law exclude police from initiating such prosecutions?
Because offences under the Act involve technical evaluation of drug quality, which requires specialised expertise and statutory procedures assigned to Drug Inspectors.

REFERENCES

[1] Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma, (2021) 12 SCC 674 — Supreme Court of India.  http://aidcoc.in/pdf/15-Supreme%20Court%20on%20Powers%20of%20Police%20and%20Drugs%20Inspectors%20to%20Arrest.pdf

[2] Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Drishti Judiciary.  https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/section-32-of-the-drugs-and-cosmetics-act-1940

[3] Proceedings under D&C Act can be initiated only on the basis of Drug Inspector’s complaint — Courtrooms.in (March 2024).  https://courtrooms.in/proceedings-under-drugs-and-cosmetics-act-1940-can-be-initiated-only-on-the-basis-of-drug-inspector-and-no

[4] Only Drug Inspectors can probe, file FIRs for certain cognizable offences under D&C Act — Express Pharma (August 2020).  https://www.expresspharma.in/only-drug-inspectors-can-probe-file-firs-for-certain-cognizable-offences-under-dc-act-1940-sc/

[5] The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — India Code.  https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15278/1/drug_cosmeticsa1940-23.pdf

[6] Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, ‘A Guide to Prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940’ (2025).  https://www.cyrilshroff.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/A-Guide-to-Prosecutions-under-the-Drugs-and-Cosmetics-Act-3.pdf

[7] Karnataka High Court: Sessions Court Has Exclusive Jurisdiction for Chapter IV Offences (January 2026) — LiveLaw.  https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-ruling-session-court-exclusive-jurisdiction-offences

The post The Drug Inspector as the Sole Prosecution Authority: Why Police Cannot File FIRs Under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.