Madras High Court Refuses to Quash FIR in Spurious Drug Racket Involving Copyright and Cheating Offences
[Case Title] : Vivek Venkatesan Vs The State of Puducherry
Date of Judgment: 21.07.2026
Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.35020 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.24577 of 2025 & 3904 of 2026
Neutral Citation : Not Available
[Court Name] : In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Factual and Procedural Background
The case stems from an FIR registered following a complaint by Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited regarding large-scale counterfeiting of its registered drug products and brand names across multiple states. Investigation linked the petitioners to the supply chain and manufacturing facilities operating in Puducherry under false pretenses. The FIR was registered under Sections 276, 318(4), and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 27(d) and 17B(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioners moved the High Court seeking to quash the FIR.
Dispute before Court
The main dispute was whether police authorities can register an FIR and investigate penal offences under the BNS when the matter involves spurious drugs falling under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Additionally, the court addressed whether allegations of copying product packaging, artistic labels, and 3D security strips attract offences of copyright infringement and cheating, and whether the existence of multiple FIRs across different states invalidated the present proceedings.
Reasoning of Judge
The Court observed that while cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are primarily subject to complaints by Drugs Inspectors, Section 32(3) of the Act contains a saving clause allowing prosecution under other general laws. The Court held that police officers are fully empowered to register and investigate cognizable offences under general criminal laws like the BNS. Regarding intellectual property rights, the Court reasoned that copyright law operates independently, and the doctrine of overlapping remedies permits parallel penal action when distinct artistic packaging, labels, or security marks protected under Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act are unlawfully reproduced. The Court further noted that deceiving consumers and distributors into buying fake medicines using replicated brand art constitutes dishonest inducement under Section 318(4) of the BNS. Lastly, it was held that this FIR pertained to distinct seizures, batch codes, and locations, making it independent of other state cases.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the FIR, holding that prima facie cognizable offences were disclosed. The Court directed the investigating agency to complete its investigation and submit a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twelve weeks.
One Important legal principle held in the case
Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 acts as a saving clause allowing parallel investigation and prosecution under general penal laws (such as the BNS) for cheating and copyright infringement involving distinct artistic packaging, independent of statutory drug inspection procedures.
[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]
Legal Protection of Pharmaceutical Packaging and Parallel Criminal Prosecution in Counterfeit Drug Cases
Introduction:
The illicit trade of counterfeit pharmaceutical products poses severe risks to public safety, commercial reputation, and healthcare integrity. When spurious medicines flood the market, legal questions frequently arise regarding which investigating agency possesses the jurisdiction to prosecute the offenders and under what specific statutory framework. A crucial aspect of this debate is whether the specialized statutory mechanism governing drugs exclusively bars traditional law enforcement agencies from investigating penal offences under general criminal codes or intellectual property statutes. In a significant judicial ruling, the High Court examined these overlapping statutory frameworks, addressing the balance between drug regulatory laws, penal provisions against cheating, and copyright protections extended to proprietary product packaging.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The origin of the case traces back to widespread detection of counterfeit medicines across several regions in India, including Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Delhi, West Bengal, Telangana, and Uttar Pradesh. A leading pharmaceutical firm, Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited, owning established registered trademarks for several well-known drug formulations such as Rosuvas, Ranozex, Montek, Rozavel, Levipil, and Gemer, uncovered a widespread distribution network dealing in fake versions of its products. Enquiries indicated that key supply operations were linked to facilities located in Puducherry, where storage and production units were allegedly functioning under the guise of fake pharma entities.
Consequently, an FIR was lodged in Puducherry under Sections 276, 318(4), and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Sections 27(d) and 17B(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Simultaneously, other FIRs had already been registered in cities such as Agra, Muzaffarnagar, and Delhi. During the pendency of the matter, the investigation of the Puducherry FIR was formally transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The individuals named as key players in the Puducherry supply chain invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the FIR.
Dispute Before the Court
The core legal question presented before the Court was whether a police officer or specialized investigating agency has the legal authority to register an FIR and conduct an investigation when the allegations predominantly involve spurious or adulterated drugs. The petitioners contended that under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, only a designated Drugs Inspector is authorized to institute legal proceedings for offenses under Chapter IV of the Act. Relying on binding judicial precedents, they argued that police officers are barred from registering FIRs or conducting searches and seizures for drug-related offenses, making the entire police action illegal and devoid of jurisdiction.
The petitioners further asserted that no offense of cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was made out since there was no direct dishonest inducement of any specific individual to deliver property. They also argued that copyright law applies strictly to traditional literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works and cannot be extended to pharmaceutical products or drug packaging. Lastly, they submitted that registering multiple FIRs across different states for the same overarching set of allegations amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
In response, the investigating agency and the pharmaceutical company argued that Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act contains an explicit saving clause preserving the right to prosecute offenders under other existing laws. They contended that the unauthorized replication of distinctive packaging designs, logos, and 3D security strips violates copyright in artistic works, which exists independently of trademark or drug regulatory statutes. They also argued that deceiving distributors and the general public into purchasing fake medicines under the guise of genuine products clearly satisfies the elements of criminal cheating.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court undertook an analytical evaluation of the statutory provisions, inter-statutory harmony, and established legal principles. Addressing the jurisdictional challenge under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Court acknowledged that while Chapter IV offenses are meant to be prosecuted through formal complaints filed by Drugs Inspectors, this restriction does not create an absolute bar against police investigation under general penal statutes. The Court emphasized Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which explicitly provides that nothing in Chapter IV shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for an act or omission constituting an offense. Therefore, general police powers to register cases under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for offenses under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 remain fully intact.
Examining the applicability of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court applied the doctrine of overlapping remedies. The Court clarified that copyright protection operates as an independent statutory framework that can be invoked concurrently alongside other commercial and penal remedies. Under Section 2(c) read with Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, original artistic work embodied in product labels, packaging layouts, and specialized graphic designs enjoys distinct copyright protection. When counterfeiters fraudulently copy and reproduce these distinctive labels, color schemes, and specialized 3D security strips, their actions go beyond mere drug contamination and constitute a direct criminal infringement of copyright under Section 51, punishable under Sections 63 and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Regarding the charge of cheating under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Court rejected the defense that no direct deception was proven at the threshold stage. The Court observed that by placing spurious medicines bearing identical brand names, artwork, and fraudulent packaging into the commercial supply chain, the accused intentionally induced distributors, retailers, and end consumers to pay money for fake drugs under the belief that they were buying genuine pharmaceutical products. This systematic misrepresentation directly establishes dishonest inducement to part with money, satisfying the statutory ingredients of cheating and causing wrongful loss to both consumers and the genuine manufacturer.
On the issue of multiple FIRs, the Court reviewed the factual record and noted that the present FIR was not a duplicate registration for the same specific occurrence. Instead, it was based on distinct seizures, specific local storage facilities uncovered in Puducherry, manipulated e-way bills, fraudulent purchase invoices, and separate batch codes. Reaffirming settled legal principles on the exercise of inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, the Court observed that an FIR is not meant to be an exhaustive encyclopedia of every detail. Citing Supreme Court rulings including Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 14 SCC 350, and M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the initial stage when the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offenses.
Final Decision of the Court
The Court declined to quash the First Information Report and dismissed the criminal original petition along with all connected miscellaneous petitions. Recognizing the need for a prompt investigation into the counterfeit drug operation, the Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to complete its investigation in Crime No.27 of 2025 and submit its final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate within twelve weeks.
Point of Law Settled
This decision clarifies the legal relationship between specialized regulatory statutes and general criminal laws. It reaffirms that the presence of specialized enforcement mechanisms under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 does not oust police jurisdiction to investigate penal offenses such as cheating under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or copyright violations under the Copyright Act, 1957. Furthermore, the ruling confirms that original artistic elements on drug packaging, labels, and anti-counterfeiting security features qualify as protected artistic works. Consequently, their unauthorized replication constitutes an independent criminal offense, allowing brand owners to pursue multi-pronged legal remedies against counterfeiters.
Title of the Case: Vivek Venkatesan and Another vs. The State of Puducherry and Others
Date of Judgment: 21.07.2026
Case Number: Crl.O.P.No.35020 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.Nos.24577 of 2025 & 3904 of 2026
Neutral Citation: Not Available
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .
Headnote of the Judgment:
Vivek Venkatesan and Another vs. State of Puducherry and Others, High Court of Judicature at Madras, Crl.O.P.No.35020 of 2025, Judgment Dated 21.07.2026. The petitioners filed a criminal original petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 276, 318(4), and 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 27(d) and 17B(b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, alleging unauthorized police jurisdiction and non-applicability of copyright and cheating provisions to counterfeit medicines. The High Court held that Section 32(3) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act saves prosecution under other penal laws, and unauthorized copying of artistic product packaging and security labels attracts copyright infringement and criminal cheating. Finding a prima facie cognizable offense, the High Court dismissed the petition and directed the investigating agency to file a final report within twelve weeks.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Madras High Court, Counterfeit Medicines, Spurious Drugs, Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, Section 32 Drugs Act, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Section 318 BNS, Cheating Penal Provisions, Copyright Infringement, Copyright in Packaging, Section 13 Copyright Act, Artistic Work Protection, Brand Protection Law, Pharmaceutical Trademarks, Central Bureau of Investigation, Quashing of FIR, Section 528 BNSS, Doctrine of Overlapping Remedies, Parallel Criminal Prosecution, Sun Pharma Judgment, Fake Medicine Racket, Multi State FIR Law, Criminal Original Petition, IP Enforcement India, Police Jurisdiction Drugs Act, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
1. Madras High Court Rules Police Can Investigate BNS Offences in Fake Drug Cases
2. Is Copyright Protection Applicable to Pharmaceutical Packaging and Labels?
3. Interplay Between Drugs and Cosmetics Act and General Criminal Penal Laws
4. Madras High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Counterfeit Medicine Network
5. Can Counterfeit Drug Operations Be Prosecuted Under Cheating and Copyright Laws?
6. Understanding Section 32 Saving Clause Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940
7. Overlapping Remedies in Intellectual Property and Spurious Medicine Prosecution
8. High Court Mandates CBI Timebound Probe in Spurious Pharma Label Racket
9. Protection of Product Artwork and Security Features Under Copyright Law India
10. Legal Remedies Against Counterfeit Pharmaceutical Brands and Spurious Drugs
No comments:
Post a Comment