Can a Drug Prosecution Survive When the Government Analyst Misses the Statutory Timeline? Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Proceedings for Violation of Rule 45 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Mechanical Summoning Order

Case Name: Ankit Aggarwal v. State of Haryana & Another

Date of Judgment: 29 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-24317-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that strict compliance with Rule 45 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is mandatory and not a mere procedural formality. Where the Government Analyst fails to analyse a drug sample within the prescribed sixty-day period and no extension is obtained from the Government by assigning reasons as mandated by the Rule, the prosecution stands vitiated. The Court further held that a summoning order which neither specifies the offences nor demonstrates judicial application of mind cannot be sustained. Since both these statutory safeguards were violated, continuation of the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of law, warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint and all consequential proceedings.

Summary: The petition arose from criminal proceedings initiated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 after a drug sample of Capsule Ceemox-L manufactured by the petitioner’s company was declared “Not of Standard Quality” by the Government Analyst. Following the analyst’s report, the Drugs Control Department traced the distribution chain and prosecuted several persons, including the petitioner, who was alleged to be responsible for the affairs of the manufacturing firm. Challenging the complaint under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner contended that the prosecution had ignored mandatory statutory safeguards. It was argued that the Government Analyst issued the report more than five months after receiving the sample, despite Rule 45 requiring analysis within sixty days unless a formal extension is obtained from the Government. The petitioner also challenged the summoning order on the ground that it was a cryptic and non-speaking order passed mechanically without recording reasons or considering his individual role in the alleged offences.

The High Court rejected the petitioner’s contention regarding Section 25(3) of the Act by observing that he had failed to dispute the Government Analyst’s report within the statutory period of twenty-eight days. However, the Court accepted the challenge founded on Rule 45, observing that the record contained no material showing that the Government Analyst had obtained any extension from the Government before issuing the report well beyond the prescribed sixty-day limit. Relying upon recent judicial precedents, the Court emphasised that the timeline under Rule 45 is intended to preserve the evidentiary integrity of drug samples and protect the valuable statutory rights available to persons facing prosecution. Non-compliance with the Rule without following the prescribed mechanism for extension renders the prosecution legally unsustainable. The Court further found that the Magistrate had initially failed even to specify the offences while issuing process and later attempted to rectify the omission through a correction order. Even thereafter, the summoning order remained completely devoid of reasons and failed to disclose any independent judicial satisfaction. Holding that criminal process cannot be issued mechanically and that statutory safeguards cannot be ignored, the Court concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and accordingly quashed the complaint, the summoning order and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

Decision: Allowing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed Complaint, the summoning order, and every consequential criminal proceeding arising therefrom insofar as the petitioner was concerned. The Court held that the unexplained violation of Rule 45 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, coupled with a non-speaking summoning order lacking judicial application of mind, struck at the very foundation of the prosecution and rendered its continuation an abuse of the process of law.