Shreeram Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shreeram Kumar, proprietor of M/s. S.R. Traders, filed a writ petition seeking the release of seized cough syrups (Onerex and Wincerex) and a godown. The seizure occurred on January 17, 2025, in connection with Kotwali (Gayaji) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025, under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the medicines and the renter of the godown, possessing valid licenses and GST registration for dealing, storing, and selling medicines. The seized medicines are alleged to be saleable on prescription in Bihar and not banned under relevant acts. The State contended that the persons present at the time of seizure failed to produce valid documents, and the seizure location was not mentioned in the petitioner's license. A chargesheet has been filed.
Held
The Court held that the seized medicines, Onerex and Wincerex cough syrups, are likely to expire within a few months and cannot be kept under seizure for an extended period, citing judgments from the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat and this Court in M/s Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Limited versus State of Bihar. The Court found that the petitioner had enclosed copies of valid licenses issued under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, a valid GST certificate of registration, transport permits, and GST invoices. The Drug Inspector acknowledged that the medicines are not banned in Bihar and can be sold through a valid license holder on a doctor's prescription. The only objection raised by the Drug Inspector was regarding the place of seizure not being mentioned in the petitioner's license. Considering the perishable nature of the goods and the petitioner's documentation, the Court directed the respondents to release the seized medicines after matching the batch numbers with the GST invoices. The Court also suggested that a panchnama of the medicines could be prepared and kept on record if the trial court deems it proper. All these actions were to be completed within three days of receiving the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the seized cough syrups, Onerex and Wincerex, are prohibited substances under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, despite being saleable on prescription in Bihar? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the seized medicines and godown, considering his possession of valid licenses, GST registration, and transport permits? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the seized medicines are not banned in Bihar and are saleable with a valid prescription. He possesses valid licenses to sell and store these drugs, along with GST registration and transport permits, as evidenced by Annexures P/2, P/3, and copies of transport permits. The petitioner also highlighted that the medicines are likely to expire soon. He is not an accused in the case where the Drug Inspector conducted a raid in another room. Revenue's Arguments: The State, through its counsel, submitted that the seized medicines contain ingredients falling under the purview of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, making them prohibited substances. They further contended that at the time of seizure, no valid license, permit, or document was produced to support the possession, storage, or transportation of these substances. The Drug Inspector's only objection was that the medicines were seized from a place not mentioned in the petitioner's license.
Sections Cited
Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, Rules 61(1) and 61(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) 5 18-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC-12 for the State.
Pursuant to our order dated 17.09.2025, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Drug Inspector has appeared online. We have made some queries with respect to the two medicines which are subject matter of release in the present case.
The present writ application has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- 2/7 “I. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction
commanding respondents to release the medicines (cough syrup) and godown in favour of petitioner, which was seized & sealed by respondent no. 5 & 6 in connection with Kotwali (Gayaji) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025 dated 17/01/2025, for the alleged occurrence dated 16/01/2025 at 16:45 Hrs under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016. Petitioner is the sole claimant and owner of the seized goods (Onerex and Wincerex cough syrup) and renter of seized godown. II. For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent authorities not to proceed with further by initiating destruction or confiscation proceeding with regard to alleged seized cough syrup, as mentioned in seizure-list, i.e. Onerex and Wincerex cough syrup. III. For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs,
order/orders, direction/directions for grant of other reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled under the facts & circumstances of the case.”
It is the case of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of M/S S.R. Traders and sole claimant of the seized cough syrups (Onerex and Wincirex cough syrups). The petitioner has claimed that he has a valid licence to deal, store 3/7 and sell the medicines to the retailers.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seized medicines are neither banned for the purpose of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act or Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as the same are saleable on the prescription of registered medical practitioners in the State of Bihar.
It is further submitted that in the same premises, the Drug Inspector was conducting raid in another room and for the seizures made therefrom, they have filed a complaint against other persons. This petitioner firm is not an accused in the said case. So far as the present case is concerned, it has been registered as a police case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act giving rise to Kotwali (Gayaji) P.S. Case No. 21 of 2025 dated 17.01.2025. 7. Learned counsel submits that the medicines were seized from the godown of the petitioner which he had taken on rent. At this stage, it is submitted that there are valid registration and GST Certificates as contained in Annexure ‘P/2’ to the writ application which would show that the principal place of business of the petitioner is Paroriya, Manpur in the district of Gayaji. The registration certificate of the GST is valid from 12.12.2024 to 11.12.2029. The petitioner has also enclosed the 4/7 copy of licence to sell, stock, or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by wholesale drugs specified in Schedule C and C(1) excluding those specified in Schedule X. It is submitted that the place of business is again shown as Paroriya, Manpur in the district of Gayaji.
Referring to the GST invoices which are annexed as Annexure ‘P/3’ to the writ application, learned counsel submits that it contains the batch number, HSN, the expiry date and the quantity of Wincirex syrup and Onerex syrup purchased from the firms, namely, Shivam Medical Store and N.T.S. Trading Company respectively. The copy of the transport permit has also been enclosed with the writ application.
It is submitted that these medicines, if not released, are likely to get expired within few months only. It is also submitted that without appreciating that the petitioner has a valid licence to sell and store these medicines, the Officer-in- Charge of the Police Station wrote a letter to the District Magistrate, Gayaji seeking his order to destroy the same.
Learned counsel has also pointed out from Annexure ‘P/5’ the information made available by Shri Vijay Kumar, Assistant Drug Controller vide Memo No. 352 dated 04.06.2025 from which it would appear that regarding Codein 5/7 Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup, it is stated that those are not banned in the State of Bihar.
Learned counsel for the State has though filed a counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 but in the counter affidavit, the documents enclosed by the petitioner such as the licence to sell and store, the GST invoices and the transport permit have not been doubted and no question has been raised with regard to their authenticity.
In paragraph ‘14’ of the counter affidavit, it is stated that a chargesheet has been submitted vide Chargesheet No. 211 of 2025 dated 28.02.2025. The only submission of learned counsel for the State is that the two medicines contain the ingredients which are falling within the purview of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, therefore, those are the prohibited substances. In paragraph ‘17’ of the counter affidavit, however, it is the stand of the State that at the time of seizure, the persons who were present there failed to produce any valid licence, permit or document in support of the possession, storage or transportation of the said substances.
In today’s hearing, in course of our interaction with the Drug Inspector, we put a straight question to him as to whether or not these medicines are made for sale in the State of 6/7 Bihar. The answer is that the medicines may be sold through a valid licence holder on doctor’s prescription. It is not banned in the State of Bihar. His only plea is that the medicines were seized from a place which is not mentioned in the licence of the petitioner. The Drug Inspector has not raised any other issue save and except with regard to the place of seizure. The medicines are still lying.
Having regard to the submissions noted hereinabove and on going through the records, we find that the petitioner has enclosed copy of the licence issued under Rules 61(1) and 61(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 in Form 20B and Form 21B, the GST certificate of registration showing period of validity from 12.12.2024 to 11.12.2024, the transport permit and the GST invoices.
In such circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that the medicines which are likely to expire within few months cannot be kept under seizure for a long time. In this connection, there are catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Laborate 7/7 Pharmaceuticals India Limited versus State of Bihar reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 5606. 16. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, we direct the respondents to release the medicines, namely, Wincirex syrup and Onerex syrup which are under seizure after matching the batch number of the medicines as per the GST invoices. The chargesheet has already been filed. In case, the learned trial court thinks just and proper, a panchnama of the medicines which are going to be released shall be prepared and the same would be kept on the record. However, all such exercise be completed within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the medicines be released immediately.
This writ application is allowed.
lekhi/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Sourendra Pandey, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.