|
The formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in spurious drug investigations can be viewed as a dual-edged sword. On one hand, an SIT can strengthen the investigation by bringing together officers with diverse expertise, facilitating coordinated evidence collection. On the other hand, an SIT may create challenges like overlapping jurisdictions and duplication of investigative efforts, said Dr BR Jagashetty, former National Adviser (Drugs Control) to MoHFW & CDSCO and former Karnataka State Drugs Controller.
SIT must be structured as an intelligence-support mechanism but not as a substitute for the statutory investigation and prosecution functions of Drugs Inspectors under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, he added.
The recent decision by the Karnataka government to constitute an SIT to probe the recent haul of counterfeit medicine network unearthed at a Bengaluru South farmhouse marks a critical juncture in law enforcement. Deploying an SIT, headed by IPS and comprising police, drug-regulatory officers, demonstrates a commitment to swiftly dismantle syndicates. However, this investigative model carries both strategic advantages and profound procedural risks, he added.
The strategic advantage is that the SIT investigates the entire network, rather than treating the case as an isolated offence by a local re-packer. It can prevent jurisdictional gaps between the State Drug Control authorities, police, and CDSCO. Unlike understaffed regulatory wings, SIT provides dedicated manpower to unravel rackets without the distraction of routine administrative duties, Dr Jagashetty told Pharmabiz.
No doubt, an SIT offers expansive jurisdictional reach, as counterfeit networks rarely operate within a single state. The current investigation in the recent Karnataka case already indicates logistical links to different states. Furthermore, with the prime accused reportedly abroad, SIT backed by police authority can seamlessly liaise with central agencies to track international fugitives, he said.
However, there are legal and technical vulnerabilities. Despite their operational strengths, SIT is heavily reliant on standard police procedures and face severe statutory hurdles under Indian pharmaceutical law, he said.
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act operates as a strict, self-contained code. Section 32 limits the power to file complaints for offenses regarding spurious drugs to designated drug inspectors and authorized gazetted officers. Further, on August 28, 2020 Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma, definitively ruled that police officers cannot independently register FIRs or investigate offenses under Chapter IV of the DCA, 1940. A police-led SIT that bypasses the Drug Inspector to file conventional FIRs risks having the entire prosecution quashed by a Sessions Court for lack of jurisdiction. However, police can investigate any offence under other Acts like BNSS/BNS, 2023, he said.
For SIT to succeed against these syndicates, it must carefully harmonize law enforcement muscle with regulatory authority. The best model is therefore a joint regulatory-police SIT, with the drug control department retaining its statutory functions and the police providing investigative, intelligence, cyber and inter-State support. That approach is consistent with CDSCO’s emphasis on urgent investigation, police assistance, and coordinated action against spurious-drug rackets, said Dr Jagashetty.
However, the text of Section 32(1)(b) expressly permits authorisation by a general or special order, making a case-specific authorisation legally possible. Accordingly, State Government may authorise a gazetted police officer in writing under Section 32(1)(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to institute prosecution in a specified spurious-drug case and the authorisation must be carefully drafted which should comply with the 2020 Supreme Court’s ruling, said Dr Jagashetty.
|