The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a manufacturing firm accused of producing a hand sanitizer that allegedly failed quality standards under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 

The bench of Justice Manisha Batra that disputed questions such as whether the product was a “cosmetic” or a “drug” could not be decided in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and would require evidence during trial. 

The case arose from a petition filed by M/s Life Vision Healthcare and one of its partners seeking quashing of Complaint summoning order dated 23.02.2023, and all consequential proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. The complaint had been instituted under Sections 18(a)(i) and 18-B punishable under Sections 27(d) and 28-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 

According to the complaint, the Drugs Inspector had inspected a medical store in Amritsar on 23.06.2020 and collected samples of “Dew Drop Hand Rub”, allegedly manufactured by the petitioner-firm situated in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. The Government Analyst, Punjab, in a report dated 07.08.2020, declared the sample to be “not of standard quality” after finding that the Isopropyl Alcohol content was only 46.99% w/v as against the label claim of 60% w/v. 

The petitioners argued before the High Court that the product in question was a cosmetic and not a drug. They contended that the authorities had wrongly invoked provisions applicable to drugs despite the product allegedly being manufactured under a valid cosmetics licence. It was further argued that the product label itself identified it as a cosmetic and that GST invoices reflected HSN classifications applicable to cosmetics. 

The petitioners also alleged violation of mandatory safeguards under Sections 23 and 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. They submitted that a sample portion was never supplied to them, thereby depriving them of the statutory right to seek re-analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory. It was argued that by the time the complaint was filed in June 2022, the shelf life of the product had already expired in March 2022, effectively frustrating their right to retesting. They further questioned the validity of the analyst’s report, alleging that the testing methodology adopted was contrary to the Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 

Another major contention raised by the petitioners was limitation. They argued that the alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment up to one year and was therefore barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. According to them, Section 27(d) of the Act had been deliberately invoked merely to bypass the limitation bar. They also challenged the complaint on the ground that it lacked specific averments showing that the partners were responsible for day-to-day affairs of the firm as required under Section 34 of the Act. 

Opposing the petition, the State contended that the product sample had been drawn strictly in accordance with law and that the analyst’s report clearly established deficiency in alcohol content. The State further submitted that notices had been issued to the petitioners along with copies of the analyst report and that the petitioners themselves had acknowledged receipt of those communications. 

The State also informed the Court that during inquiry, the authorities had collected documents relating to drug manufacturing licences, renewal certificates, GMP certificates and partnership records from the concerned licensing authorities. According to the State, the petitioners never produced any cosmetics manufacturing licence or product permission before the authorities. 

Justice Manisha Batra observed that the principal issue raised by the petitioners — whether the product was a cosmetic or a drug — involved disputed factual and technical questions which could not be conclusively decided in proceedings for quashing. The Court noted that the matter would require appreciation of evidence and technical adjudication before the trial court. 

The High Court further held that the complaint could not be treated as barred by limitation at the threshold because Section 27(d) prescribed punishment extending up to two years, thereby attracting a limitation period of three years under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that the legality of invoking Section 27(d) and whether the ingredients of the offence were ultimately made out were issues to be tested during trial. 

Reiterating that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, the Court held that the complaint was based on sampling, analyst reports, exchange of notices, collection of documents and sanction by the competent authority. 

The Court stated that it could not conduct a “mini trial” at the quashing stage to determine whether the product was ultimately a cosmetic or a drug. 

The High Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim stay granted earlier, directing the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s Life Vision Healthcare and another Versus State of Punjab through its Drugs Inspector 

Citation: JURISHOUR-1442-HC-2026(P&H) 

Case No.: CRM-M-6346-2024 (O&M)

Date: 26.05.2026

Counsel For Appellant: Nitin Bahsin, Advocate 

Counsel For Respondent:  Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG

Read More: GSTAT Flags Unsigned GST Orders As Defects Despite Courts Holding Portal-Uploaded Documents Genuine