Madras HC: Police Can Investigate Pharmaceutical Counterfeiting Simultaneously Under the BNS and Special Laws

The High Court has fortified the power of law enforcement to pursue counterfeit drug syndicates under general criminal law, ruling that specialized pharmaceutical regulations do not provide a 'safe harbour' from prosecution under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In a stern warning to counterfeiters, the court held that the unauthorized replication of medicinal packaging and trademarks constitutes a distinct criminal act of cheating and copyright infringement that warrants full police investigation alongside regulatory action.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan presided over the matter, hearing a challenge against an FIR registered in Puducherry involving a large-scale counterfeit drug supply chain. The Court was tasked with deciding whether the police have the jurisdiction to register and investigate cases involving spurious drugs, which are primarily governed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Concurrent Jurisdiction of Police and Drug Inspectors

The Court clarified that while Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 mandates investigation by Drug Inspectors, it does not create an absolute bar for police intervention under general criminal statutes. Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was highlighted as a saving clause that permits prosecution under other laws.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Though the FIR was registered for the offences falling under Chapter IV of the DC Act, and those offences should be investigated by the Drug Inspectors, there is no bar to the police officer from investigating the offences under other laws including the offences under the BNS. Nothing contained in Chapter IV of the DC Act that it shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this Chapter."

Copyright Protection in Pharmaceutical Packaging

Addressing the petitioners' argument that counterfeiting drugs does not attract the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court noted that pharmaceutical labels and designs qualify as original artistic works. The Court found that since the complainant company is the registered proprietor of distinctive labels and designs protected under Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, any unauthorized reproduction by the accused constitutes a penal offence.

The Court has the following directions:

"the third respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.27 of 2025 and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed."

Key Takeaways

Overlapping Legal Remedies

Criminal prosecution can proceed simultaneously under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and special acts like the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Copyright Act, 1957.

Police Powers Preserved

Specialized regulatory frameworks do not oust the jurisdiction of the police to investigate cognizable offences such as cheating and fraud.

Pharma Packaging as Intellectual Property

Counterfeiting pharmaceutical labels is not just a drug violation but a criminal infringement of copyright and trademark rights.

FIR Quashing Standards

Courts will not stifle investigations at the threshold if the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence.

Ratio

The jurisdiction of a police officer to investigate cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not excluded by the existence of special procedures under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Furthermore, the doctrine of overlapping remedies allows for the parallel invocation of the Copyright Act, 1957 where pharmaceutical packaging involving original artistic work is imitated with a dishonest intent to deceive consumers.

Background:

The case arose when Sun Pharma detected large-scale counterfeiting of its major brands, including Montek and Rosuvas, across several Indian states. Investigations traced the manufacturing and storage of these spurious drugs to Puducherry. The petitioners, alleged to be key players in the supply chain, sought to quash the FIR registered by the CBCID (later transferred to the CBI).

They argued that under Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma & ors. ( "(2021) 12 SCC 674": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 1671), only Drug Inspectors could prosecute offences related to spurious drugs and that the police lacked jurisdiction. They further contended that the Copyright Act, 1957 was inapplicable to industrial pharmaceutical products and that multiple FIRs were being filed for the same cause of action. The Court distinguished Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma & ors. ( "(2021) 12 SCC 674": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 1671), noting that while police cannot prosecute specifically for DC Act offences, they are fully empowered to investigate BNS offences. Relying on Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. and M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ( "2021 SCC Online SC 315": 2021 CaseBase(SC) 282), the Court emphasized that FIRs should not be scuttled at the initial stage unless they are frivolous. The petition was dismissed with directions to the CBI to complete the probe within twelve weeks.

Case Details:
Case No.: Crl.O.P.No.35020 of 2025
Case Title: Vivek Venkatesan and Anr. Vs. The State of Puducherry and Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Senthil
For the Respondent(s): Mr. M.V.Ramachandramurthy, Public Prosecutor (Pondy) for R1; Mr.P.Kumaresan for Mr.A.Rameshkumar for R2; Mr.E.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI for R3

Source: 2026 CaseBase(MAD) 679