Misbranded cosmetics prosecution can proceed where licence conditions require prescribed standards and sample testing shows non-conformity.

A licence for manufacturing toilet soaps may validly require conformity with prescribed ISI specifications, and reference to an existing testing method does not amount to unauthorised legislation. Where the sample report shows non-compliance with the prescribed standards and the label declarations do not match the analyst's findings, the goods may fall within misbranded cosmetics under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On such facts, the complaint discloses a prima facie offence and prosecution can proceed. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is not available to stifle criminal proceedings that disclose sufficient grounds for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning order in a prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was liable to be quashed on the ground that the ISI specifications for toilet soaps were beyond the authority of the licensing authority and that no offence of misbranded cosmetics was made out.

Analysis: The licence issued for manufacture of toilet soaps contained a specific condition that the product would conform to the relevant ISI specifications, and the testing method referred to in the specification was already in existence. The Court found that the Drug Controller's endorsement did not amount to unauthorized legislation but only reflected the applicable standard under the licence and the governing rules. The sample report showed that the soaps did not satisfy the prescribed minimum standards and the label declarations did not match the analyst's findings. On that basis, the products fell within the concept of misbranded cosmetics, and the complaint under the Act disclosed sufficient grounds for prosecution. The Court also held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC could not be used to stifle a prosecution which disclosed a prima facie offence.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order failed, and the prosecution was held to be maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing was found meritless, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a licence for cosmetics expressly requires conformity with prescribed product specifications and the sample discloses non-conformity with those standards and false label declarations, a prosecution for misbranded cosmetics cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent criminal jurisdiction.

---