Introduction:
In a significant ruling addressing the growing menace of pharmaceutical drug trafficking, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash multiple FIRs registered against several accused persons allegedly involved in an interstate racket dealing with Codeine-based cough syrup, popularly known as Phensedyl. The decision came in a batch of 23 writ petitions, including one filed by the alleged kingpin of the syndicate, Shubham Jaiswal. A Division Bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Achal Sachdev held that the sheer enormity of the operation, the clandestine manner of transportation, and the alleged diversion of medicinal cough syrup for non-therapeutic purposes justified a full-fledged criminal investigation under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), as well as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The Court emphasised that while Codeine-based formulations may, in limited and regulated quantities, fall within statutory exemptions under drug laws, such protection collapses when the facts disclose systematic abuse, concealment, fabrication of documents, and trafficking on a massive scale. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s unwillingness to allow technical exemptions to become shields for organised criminal activity, particularly when public health, cross-border crime, and narcotics control are at stake.
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners, including the alleged kingpin and various other accused, approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIRs lodged across multiple districts such as Sonbhadra, Ghaziabad, Kanpur Nagar, Jaunpur, and Varanasi. Their primary contention was rooted in the statutory framework governing Codeine-based cough syrups. Represented by Senior Advocate Nipun Singh, the petitioners argued that Phensedyl contains Codeine in quantities below 100 milligrams per dosage unit and is compounded with other therapeutic ingredients. Relying on a Government of India notification issued in 1985, it was contended that such formulations fall outside the definition of a “manufactured drug” under the NDPS Act, provided they are intended for medicinal use.
The petitioners placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Ashok Kumar v. Union of India (2015), where it was held that preparations containing Codeine below the prescribed threshold, and meant for therapeutic use, would not attract the rigours of the NDPS Act. It was argued that mere possession or transportation of cough syrup bottles, without proof of misuse, could not automatically convert a licensed pharmaceutical product into contraband. According to the petitioners, the FIRs were premised on presumptions rather than concrete evidence of narcotic abuse.
Another crucial plank of the petitioners’ argument was jurisdictional. They relied on the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma to submit that offences involving drugs and cosmetics could only be prosecuted by a Drug Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was argued that the police lacked the authority to register FIRs under the NDPS Act or the BNS in respect of pharmaceutical products governed by a special statute. According to the petitioners, allowing parallel prosecution under NDPS and general penal laws would result in abuse of process and undermine legislative intent.
The petitioners further contended that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, being a special law, should prevail over the NDPS Act in cases involving medicinal preparations. They argued that the alleged transportation irregularities, even if assumed to be true, could at best attract regulatory violations under drug control laws and not stringent criminal provisions under NDPS. The invocation of NDPS offences, it was submitted, was disproportionate and designed to harass the accused. On these grounds, the petitioners urged the Court to quash the FIRs and halt the investigation.
Arguments on Behalf of the State:
Opposing the petitions, the State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, painted a starkly different picture of the factual matrix. The State argued that the case was not about isolated regulatory lapses or lawful pharmaceutical trade, but about a massive, organised, interstate and cross-border trafficking operation. It was submitted that investigations revealed diversion of Phensedyl from Jharkhand into Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and eventually across the international border into Bangladesh, where the syrup is widely abused as an intoxicant.
The State placed heavy emphasis on the enormity of the seizures. In Sonbhadra, authorities intercepted containers purportedly carrying “Hot Mix Namkeen” and chips, only to discover 119,675 bottles of Codeine-based cough syrup concealed beneath snack packets. In Ghaziabad, trucks were found carrying syrup hidden under sacks of wheat and rice. In Varanasi alone, over 2.23 crore bottles were reportedly recovered, demonstrating the industrial scale of the operation. According to the State, such quantities could not, by any stretch of imagination, be linked to legitimate medicinal use.
The prosecution further highlighted the sophisticated modus operandi employed by the accused, including the use of fake seals of pharmaceutical companies, forged Aadhaar cards, false citizenship documents, and manipulated e-way bills categorising drug consignments as food items. Laptops and digital evidence recovered during raids allegedly showed coordination across states and involvement of multiple entities. The State argued that such conduct clearly demonstrated criminal intent and ruled out any claim of bona fide pharmaceutical trade.
Addressing the legal arguments, the State contended that statutory exemptions under the NDPS Act are conditional and hinge on the purpose for which the drug is used. Once it is evident that the substance is being diverted for non-therapeutic purposes, the exemption ceases to apply. The State relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (SC) 434), where it was held that misuse of Codeine-based cough syrup in large quantities attracts the NDPS Act notwithstanding its medicinal character.
The State also countered the jurisdictional objection by pointing to Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Section 80 of the NDPS Act, both of which expressly permit prosecution under other laws. According to the State, these provisions make it clear that the NDPS Act operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The State therefore urged the Court to allow the investigation to proceed unhindered.
Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:
After carefully examining the rival submissions and the extensive factual record reflected in the FIRs, the Allahabad High Court dismissed all 23 writ petitions, holding that no case for quashing was made out. The Bench began by noting that the Court, at the stage of quashing, is not required to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence but must assess whether the allegations disclose a cognisable offence warranting investigation. On a plain reading of the FIRs, the Court found that the allegations went far beyond regulatory violations and pointed towards a well-organised criminal network engaged in illicit trafficking.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on statutory exemptions by focusing on the intent and scale of the alleged activity. While acknowledging that Phensedyl may technically fall within an exception to the definition of a “manufactured drug” when used therapeutically, the Bench held that such an exception cannot be mechanically applied without regard to surrounding circumstances. The enormous quantities involved, the deceptive methods of transport, and the use of forged documents clearly indicated that the Codeine component was not being used for medical or scientific purposes.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors., the Bench observed that when a medicinal preparation containing Codeine is misused on such a scale, the NDPS Act is rightly attracted. The Court held that the protective umbrella of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act evaporates once the factual matrix reveals fabrication, concealment, and diversion for intoxicant use. The transportation of cough syrup under e-way bills meant for snacks and namkeen, the Court noted, was a telling indicator of criminal intent.
On the jurisdictional issue, the High Court categorically rejected the argument that only a Drug Inspector could prosecute such offences. Referring to Section 32(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the Court observed that the statute itself clarifies that nothing therein prevents prosecution under any other law. Similarly, Section 80 of the NDPS Act expressly provides that its provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Court held that these provisions leave no room for doubt that parallel prosecution under NDPS and penal laws is legally permissible.
The Bench further observed that the FIRs disclosed offences not only under the NDPS Act but also under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, particularly those relating to forgery, cheating, and use of false documents. The fabrication of seals, misuse of identity documents, and concealment of goods squarely attracted penal liability beyond drug control laws.
Emphasising the gravity of the allegations, the Court concluded that the enormity of the racket necessitated a thorough investigation. Quashing the FIRs at this stage, the Bench held, would amount to stifling a legitimate investigation into a serious interstate and potentially international narcotics operation. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed, and the police were permitted to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.