Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Conviction Over Lack of Jurisdiction; Rules Subsequent Amendments Mandate Sessions Trial

In a decisive ruling for procedural legality, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has set aside a decade-old conviction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, affirming that legislative amendments shifting trial forums to the Court of Sessions are retrospective and must be strictly adhered to.

A Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Mahinder Singh, who challenged the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. The petitioner contended that the trial conducted by the Magistrate was void ab initio as the law had vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Sessions prior to the filing of the complaint.

Key Takeaways

Exclusive Jurisdictional Shift: The judgment reaffirms that following the 2008 amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, no court inferior to a Court of Sessions has the jurisdiction to try specified offences under the Act.
Retrospective Nature of Procedural Law: Law relating to forum and procedure is procedural in nature and operates retrospectively, meaning pending or new cases must move to the new forum unless specifically protected.
Voidance of Coram Non-Judice Proceedings: Any trial conducted by a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction results in the quashing of the conviction, regardless of the findings on merits.
Remittal for Fresh Trial: The High Court has the power to remit the matter back to the inception stage to be tried by the competent court as per the prevailing statute.

Court's Observations on Procedural Amendments

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...the change of law was procedural and the accused would be tried by the Court of Session and not by the Court of Magistrate... law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal, even though remedial, is substantive in nature. Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law, but no such right exists in procedural law."

Ratio

An amendment that shifts the forum of trial (e.g., from a Magistrate to a Court of Sessions) is procedural in nature. Such an amendment applies to all cases instituted after the amendment comes into force, as well as pending matters where trial hasn't concluded, because no litigant has a vested right in a particular forum of trial.

Background

The case originated from an inspection conducted by a Drug Inspector at 'M/s Jaswal Clinic-cum-Medical Store'. The petitioner was found in possession of allopathic drugs without a valid license, allegedly providing only a certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Consequently, a complaint was filed in March 2010 under Section 18(c) and Section 18A, punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The Trial Court convicted the petitioner in 2011, a decision later upheld by the Appellate Court in 2014. However, the High Court noted that Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was amended by Act No. 26 of 2008, effective from August 10, 2009. This amendment mandated that offences under that Chapter be tried exclusively by a Court of Sessions. Relying on the precedent in Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of M.P. ( "(2013) 14 SCC 696": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 812), the Court held that since the complaint was filed in 2010 after the amendment the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the case.

Directions Issued

Setting aside the previous judgments, Justice Rakesh Kainthla directed:

The judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2011 and order of sentence dated 01.12.2011 are ordered to be set aside.
The matter is remitted to the learned Trial Court, which shall proceed as per the amended Drugs Act.
The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court.
The record along with a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to reach the learned Trial Court.

Case Details

Case Title: Mahinder Singh v. State of HP

Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 35 of 2015

Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla

Date of Judgment: September 10, 2026

Neutral Citation: 2026:HHC:38483

Source: 2026 CaseBase(HP) 7998