An Analysis of Section 274 of the Indian Penal Code: Adulteration of Drugs

An Analysis of Section 274 of the Indian Penal Code: Adulteration of Drugs

Introduction

Section 274 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) addresses the offence of adulterating drugs or medical preparations. This provision plays a vital role in safeguarding public health by penalizing acts that compromise the safety and efficacy of medicinal products. The increasing complexity of pharmaceutical production and distribution, alongside the persistent threat of substandard and falsified medical products, underscores the continuing relevance of this section. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of Section 274 IPC, examining its ingredients, its interplay with specialized legislation such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and judicial interpretations of key concepts. The analysis will draw significantly from the provided reference materials to elucidate the practical application and legal challenges associated with this provision in India.

Section 274 of the Indian Penal Code: An Overview

Section 274 of the IPC is specifically designed to criminalize the act of adulterating drugs or medical preparations with the intent to sell or use them, or with the knowledge that they are likely to be sold or used, for medicinal purposes as if they were unadulterated. The provision states:

"Whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

Essential Ingredients

To establish an offence under Section 274 IPC, the prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients:

  • Adulteration: The accused must have adulterated a drug or medical preparation.
  • Manner of Adulteration: The adulteration must be such that it:
    • Lessens the efficacy of the drug/medical preparation; or
    • Changes the operation of the drug/medical preparation; or
    • Makes the drug/medical preparation noxious.
  • Mens Rea (Intention or Knowledge): The accused must have:
    • Intended that the adulterated drug/medical preparation shall be sold or used for any medicinal purpose as if it had not undergone such adulteration; or
    • Known it to be likely that it will be sold or used for any medicinal purpose as if it had not undergone such adulteration.

The application of this section is evident in cases where individuals are found involved in activities that compromise drug quality. For instance, in Birendra Uraon And Another v. State Of Jharkhand Opp. Party. (2020 SCC ONLINE JHAR 1358, Jharkhand High Court, 2020), the petitioners were convicted, inter alia, under Section 274 IPC, indicating its use in conjunction with other offences. Similarly, Sanjay Pathak v. State Of M.P. (2021 SCC ONLINE MP 1594, Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2021) involved an arrest for offences including Section 274 IPC and provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, highlighting the typical legal framework in such prosecutions.

The Crucial Interface: Section 274 IPC and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940

While Section 274 IPC provides a general penal provision for drug adulteration, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (D&C Act) is a special and comprehensive legislation enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of drugs and cosmetics. The interplay between these two statutes is a significant area of legal discourse, particularly concerning investigative powers and the cognizance of offences.

Primacy of Special Legislation and Investigative Authority

A recurring issue in cases involving drug adulteration is whether the general provisions of the IPC can be invoked when a special law like the D&C Act exists, and more critically, who is empowered to investigate such offences. The D&C Act lays down specific procedures and designates authorities (such as Drug Inspectors) for its enforcement.

The case of Subramanian K.v. And Another Applicants v. State Of Maharashtra (2020 SCC ONLINE BOM 9137, Bombay High Court, 2020) is particularly instructive. In this matter, where the applicants faced allegations under Sections 274, 275, and 276 of the IPC and various sections of the D&C Act, a principal submission was that cognizance of offences under the D&C Act cannot be taken by a Police Officer, nor is a Police Officer entitled to effect arrest. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma (Criminal Appeal No. 200/2020, decided on 28/8/2020), with the contention that even pending FIRs prior to this judgment were required to be transferred to the Drug Inspector. The argument underscored that the D&C Act envisages the filing of a private complaint by the designated authority.

Similarly, in Ram Kowshik v. The inspector of Police (Madras High Court, 2020), where an FIR was registered under Section 274 IPC and Section 32 of the D&C Act, the petitioner argued that the police lacked the power to investigate offences under the D&C Act and that the second respondent (presumably a Drug Inspector, though not explicitly stated as such in the excerpt) was not the competent authority to lodge a complaint for the D&C Act offence in that specific manner. The court was called upon to resolve the issue of police authority in such combined investigations.

Judicial Scrutiny on Investigative Procedures

The judiciary has often examined the procedural propriety when both IPC sections and special act provisions are invoked. The concern is to ensure that the specific mandates of the special law, designed with particular expertise and objectives in mind, are not bypassed. While the FIR in Ram Kowshik (2020) included Section 274 IPC, which police can generally investigate, the challenge arose due to the concurrent invocation of the D&C Act. The court in Subramanian K. (2020) acknowledged the need to examine the legal issue concerning the police's role in light of the D&C Act and the Supreme Court's pronouncements.

This tension is analogous to situations observed with other special legislations concerning public health and safety. For example, in the context of food safety, Muthineni Ashok v. The State of Telangana (Telangana High Court, 2024) discussed the competency of police to investigate offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA), concluding that only the Food Safety Officer is competent to launch prosecution for certain FSS Act offences. The Supreme Court in Ram Nath v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (s) (Supreme Court Of India, 2024) also noted the exhaustive provisions within the FSSA for offences relating to food safety, implying a preference for the special act's mechanisms where applicable.

Interpreting "Adulteration" and "Noxious" in the Context of Public Health

Section 274 IPC uses terms like "adulterates," "lessen the efficacy," "change the operation," and "noxious." While the IPC itself may not provide exhaustive definitions for these, judicial interpretations, often drawing from analogous provisions related to food adulteration (Sections 272 and 273 IPC), offer guidance.

In Joseph Kurian Philip Jose v. State Of Kerala (Supreme Court Of India, 1994), while discussing Section 272 IPC (Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale), the Supreme Court explained that "noxious rendering is making it poisonous or harmful or both." It was further clarified that "the offence is complete on introduction of the adulterant in the food or drink, provided it is meant for the purposes of sale, actual or likely." This principle of an act becoming "noxious" and the completion of the offence upon adulteration with intent/knowledge of sale can be analogously applied to Section 274 IPC concerning drugs.

The case of Ganesh Pandurang Jadhao v. State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2016), dealing with Sections 272 and 273 IPC, noted that the IPC does not specifically define "food adulteration" but acknowledged that special acts like the FSSA provide comprehensive definitions. By analogy, the D&C Act would provide more specific standards for what constitutes an adulterated drug, which can inform the interpretation of "adulteration" under Section 274 IPC.

Section 273 IPC, which deals with the "Sale of noxious food or drink," was elaborated upon in Dilipsinh v. The State Of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2010). The ingredients include selling, offering, or exposing for sale an article that has been rendered or become noxious, or is unfit for food or drink, with the knowledge or reason to believe that it is noxious. This focus on the state of the article and the accused's knowledge is paralleled in Section 274 IPC's requirement of intent or knowledge regarding the sale or use of the adulterated drug.

Cognizability, Bailability, and Procedural Considerations

The procedural classification of an offence under Section 274 IPC is crucial for determining how investigations are initiated and bail is considered. In Subramanian K. (2020), it was submitted before the Bombay High Court that "the offence under Section 274 of IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for six months is a noncogniaible and non-bailable offence." Generally, as per the First Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 274 IPC is classified as non-cognizable and bailable. The submission noted in Subramanian K. (2020) regarding its non-bailable nature is specific to the arguments presented in that case. A non-cognizable offence means a police officer cannot arrest without a warrant and, typically, cannot start an investigation without a magisterial order (except where a cognizable offence is also alleged).

The non-cognizable nature, if consistently applied, would mean that for an offence solely under Section 274 IPC, police action would be limited without prior judicial authorization. However, as seen in cases like Subramanian K. (2020), Ram Kowshik (2020), and Sanjay Pathak (2021), Section 274 IPC is often invoked alongside provisions of the D&C Act, some of which might be cognizable or have different procedural requirements, leading to complex legal scenarios regarding the initiation and conduct of investigations.

Conclusion

Section 274 of the Indian Penal Code remains a relevant tool in the legal arsenal against the adulteration of drugs and medical preparations, aiming to protect public health and safety. Its application, however, is significantly nuanced by the presence of specialized legislation, primarily the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Judicial pronouncements, particularly those highlighted in Subramanian K. (2020) and Ram Kowshik (2020), emphasize the procedural framework established by the D&C Act, especially concerning the authority to investigate and prosecute. The interpretation of key terms like "adulteration" and "noxious" often benefits from principles established in related public health offences, such as those concerning food adulteration (Sections 272 and 273 IPC), as seen in Joseph Kurian Philip Jose (1994).

The legal landscape suggests a careful approach is required when Section 274 IPC is invoked, ensuring that its application aligns with the procedural safeguards and institutional mechanisms established under special enactments like the D&C Act. The continued vigilance of regulatory authorities and the judiciary is essential to address the challenges posed by drug adulteration effectively, thereby upholding the integrity of medicinal products and safeguarding the well-being of the populace.