List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi in the case of M/S SBS Biotech & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2026) held that offences punishable under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 cannot be tried by a Magistrate and must be tried by a Court not inferior to a Sessions Court. 

What was the Background of M/S SBS Biotech & Others v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2026) Case? 

• A Drug Inspector conducted an inspection on July 22, 2014 at the manufacturing premises of M/s SBS Biotech at Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. 
• The firm was alleged to have not maintained records in the manner required under Schedule M (good manufacturing practices and documentation) and Schedule U (particulars to be shown in manufacturing records) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, particularly in relation to the drug Pseudoephedrine. 
• A re-inspection was carried out on August 5, 2014, revealing discrepancies in the manufacturing, testing, and distribution records. 
• Sanction for prosecution was granted on September 15, 2016, and a complaint was filed on February 27, 2017 alleging contravention of Section 18(a)(vi) read with Rule 74, Section 22(1)(cca), and Section 18-B, punishable under Section 27(d) and Section 28-A of the Act. 
• The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) took cognizance on April 6, 2017 and later committed the case to the Special Judge on October 5, 2017, holding the offence to be exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 
• The appellant's quashing petition before the High Court was dismissed, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations?  

• The Court observed that Section 32(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act specifically mandates that no Court inferior to a Court of Session shall try offences punishable under Chapter IV, making the Sessions Court the minimum forum for such trials. 
• The Court held that when the complaint disclosed an offence under Section 18(a)(vi) — relating to prohibition of manufacture and sale of drugs in contravention of Chapter IV — the punishment under Section 27(d) would apply, which prescribes imprisonment of not less than one year and up to two years. 
• On the question of limitation, the Court held that since Section 27(d) prescribes a minimum of one year's imprisonment, the applicable limitation period under Section 468 of the CrPC is three years. As the complaint was filed within two years and six months of the inspection, it was not barred by limitation. 
• The Court rejected the argument that Section 36-A — which provides for summary trial by a JMFC for offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years — could vest jurisdiction in a Magistrate. It noted that Section 36-A itself excludes offences triable by a Special Court under Section 36-AB or by a Sessions Court, and that Section 32(2) specifically bars any court inferior to a Sessions Court from trying Chapter IV offences. 
• The Court found no error in the Magistrate's decision to commit the case to the Sessions Court and dismissed the appeal. 

What is the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs and cosmetics in India. 
• Replaced the earlier Dangerous Drugs Act and aimed to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of drugs available to the public. 
• Administered jointly by the Central Government and State Governments. 

Structure: 

• Divided into multiple Chapters dealing with drugs, cosmetics, and Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medicines separately. 
• Supported by the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which provide detailed procedural and technical requirements. 

Key Definitions: 

• "Drug" includes medicines for internal or external use, substances used for diagnosis, and articles intended to affect body structure or function. 
• "Cosmetic" means any article intended for use on the human body for cleansing, beautifying, or altering appearance. 
• "Manufacture" includes any process involved in making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, or otherwise treating a drug. 

Regulatory Authorities: 

• Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) is the national regulatory body headed by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI). 
• State Drug Authorities handle licensing and enforcement at the state level. 
• Drug Inspectors are empowered to inspect, sample, and seize drugs. 

Chapter IV – Manufacture, Sale & Distribution: 

• Prohibits manufacture, sale, or distribution of drugs that are misbranded, adulterated, or spurious. 
• Section 18(a)(vi) prohibits manufacture or sale in contravention of Chapter IV or Rules made thereunder. 
• Manufacturers must comply with Schedule M (Good Manufacturing Practices) and Schedule U (manufacturing record requirements). 
• Licenses are mandatory for manufacture and sale of drugs. 

Scheduled Substances & Records: 

• Schedule M lays down standards for premises, equipment, and documentation for drug manufacturing. 
• Schedule U prescribes the particulars to be shown in manufacturing, testing, and distribution records. 
• Habit-forming substances like Pseudoephedrine are subject to stricter record-keeping and oversight. 

Offences & Punishments: 

• Section 27 prescribes punishments for various offences including manufacture of spurious or adulterated drugs, with imprisonment ranging from one year to life, depending on the nature of the offence. 
• Section 27(d) punishes contravention of Chapter IV or Rules with imprisonment of not less than one year and up to two years. 
• Section 28-A prescribes imprisonment of up to one year for failure to maintain records or furnish information under Section 18-B. 
• Section 32(2) mandates that no Court inferior to a Court of Session shall try offences under Chapter IV. 

Cognizance & Trial: 

• Offences under Chapter IV are exclusively triable by a Sessions Court and cannot be tried by a Magistrate. 
• Section 36-A, which allows summary trial by a JMFC for lesser offences, does not apply to Chapter IV offences due to the overriding mandate of Section 32(2). 
• Special Courts under Section 36-AB may also be constituted for speedy trial of drug offences. 

Inspection & Enforcement Powers 

• Drug Inspectors have wide powers to enter and inspect premises, take samples, seize stocks, and examine records 
• Section 22(1)(cca) empowers inspectors to check compliance with record-keeping requirements 
• Refusal to produce records or furnishing false information is itself an offence under the Act 

Significance 

• The Act serves as the backbone of drug regulation in India, ensuring that only safe and effective medicines reach consumers 
• It has been periodically amended to address emerging challenges such as counterfeit drugs, online pharmacies, and new drug categories 
• Compliance with the Act is essential for all pharmaceutical manufacturers, importers, and distributors operating in India 

Source: Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Uday Kumar of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ashis Kumar Dutta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2026) partly quashed criminal proceedings in a matrimonial cruelty case, holding that extended family members cannot be roped into trial solely on the basis of vague and omnibus allegations, and that courts must prevent the criminal process from being used for "wholesale implication" of relatives in matrimonial disputes. 

What was the Background of Ashis Kumar Dutta & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) by Ashis Kumar Dutta, a practising advocate, and his brother Tapas Kumar Dutta, seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of Bantra Police Station case in Howrah. 
• The marriage between the husband and the complainant-wife had subsisted for nearly twelve years, during which the couple had twin daughters. 
• The dispute surfaced in March 2017 when the wife left the matrimonial home, alleging sustained physical and mental cruelty linked to dowry demands. 
• The wife alleged that she was assaulted and forced out after her family failed to pay ₹1 lakh for the purchase of a car, and she further accused the brother-in-law of drunken abuse and misappropriation of her stridhan. 
• The husband contended that the wife had voluntarily left the house and relied upon a written "no-complaint" declaration allegedly signed by her father on the same day, and had also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. 
• After investigation, police filed a charge sheet against both the husband and the brother-in-law. 
• The petitioners argued that the FIR was a retaliatory "counter-blast" to the husband's matrimonial proceedings and that the allegations against the brother-in-law were general and inherently improbable. 
• The State opposed quashing, contending that once a charge sheet was filed, disputed factual issues — including the genuineness of the "no-complaint" letter — must be tested at trial. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court referred to the caution expressed by the Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar against the growing tendency to rope in all family members in matrimonial disputes through vague allegations. 
• The Court observed that criminal liability must be "act-based" and not merely "status-based," and that relatives cannot be forced to undergo trial in the absence of specific overt acts attributed to them. 
• Applying this principle, the Court found that the allegations against the brother-in-law were "general and omnibus," lacking dates, particulars, or distinct acts of cruelty, and that continuing proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the case against him was quashed and he was discharged. 
• However, the Court declined to extend the same relief to the husband, noting that the complaint contained specific allegations of dowry demand and a dated incident of physical ouster. 
• The Court held that the "no-complaint" declaration relied upon by the husband was a defence document whose authenticity and surrounding circumstances must be tested through evidence at trial, and that it could not conduct a "mini-trial" or weigh defence material at the threshold stage when specific accusations disclosed a prima facie case. 
• The Court partly allowed the petition — quashing proceedings against the brother-in-law while directing the trial to continue against the husband in accordance with law. 

What is Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)? 

• Section 85 of the BNS corresponds to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and criminalizes cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman, prescribing punishment of imprisonment up to three years along with fine. 
• Under BNSS classification, the offence is cognizable only when information is given by the aggrieved woman or her blood/marriage/adoption relatives, or in absence of such relatives, by notified public servants of specified categories as determined by the State Government. 
• The offence under Section 85 BNS is non-bailable in nature and triable by a Magistrate of the first class, maintaining the serious legal consequences associated with matrimonial cruelty cases. 
• Section 86 BNS defines "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 85, encompassing two distinct categories of conduct that constitute the offence against married women. 
• The first category of cruelty under Section 86(1) includes any wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health, whether mental or physical. 
• The second category under Section 86(2) covers harassment of the woman with intent to coerce her or her relatives to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security, or harassment due to failure to meet such demands. 
• The BNS provisions maintain the essential elements and legal framework of the erstwhile IPC Section 498A while transitioning to the new criminal law structure, preserving the protective mechanism for married women against domestic cruelty.