LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/s SBS Biotech v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 171Decided 20 Feb 2026
Crl.A. No.-001112-001112 - 2026
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Background

A pharmaceutical firm, M/s SBS Biotech, and two of its officials were prosecuted after a 2014 drug inspection at their Himachal Pradesh factory found they had not properly maintained manufacturing and consumption records for a controlled drug (Pseudoephedrine) as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. After a delayed inspection, seizure, and sanction process, a criminal complaint was filed in 2017 and the case was committed to a Special Judge. The firm sought to quash the proceedings before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, arguing the case was time-barred and had been wrongly sent to the Sessions-level court instead of a Magistrate; the High Court dismissed the petition, and the firm appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the alleged conduct (failure to maintain records under Schedule M and U) amounted to an offence under Section 18(a)(vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which is punishable under Section 27(d) with imprisonment of one to two years, not the lesser Section 18-B/28-A offence (with only a one-year term) that the firm argued applied. Since Section 27(d) carries up to two years' imprisonment, the applicable limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. was three years, and the complaint (filed about two years and six months after the inspection) was within time. The Court also held that under Section 32(2) of the Act, offences under Chapter IV cannot be tried by any court inferior to a Court of Session, so Section 36-A's summary-trial provision for Magistrates did not apply, and the case was correctly committed to the Special Judge. Finding no error in the High Court's reasoning, including its view that the Magistrate's omission of Section 27(d) in the cognizance order was a mere clerical slip, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Lesson Learnt

In prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the applicable limitation period and the appropriate trial court depend on correctly identifying which specific penal provision the alleged conduct falls under (here, record-keeping lapses fell under the higher-penalty Section 27(d), not the lighter Section 28-A): businesses cannot rely on a lesser provision's shorter limitation period simply because the underlying allegation concerns paperwork rather than the drug itself.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case