Despite the newfound authority, the recent arrests have been a complex and resource-intensive process, with Drug Inspectors often stretched beyond their usual responsibilities.
Published Jul 18, 2025 | 9:26 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 18, 2025 | 10:27 AM
Synopsis: The Telangana Drugs Control Administration has recently taken on the role of enforcer beyond its traditional regulatory mandate, with drug inspectors directly arresting distributors of counterfeit medicines. The agency’s newfound power is based on an obscure legal clause from a pre-Independence law; as such, the process has been anything but conventional.
Last month, for the first time in its history, Telangana’s Drugs Control Administration (DCA) went beyond its regulatory mandate and undertook direct enforcement action, arresting two drug distributors accused of selling counterfeit medicines.
Praveen Kumar Kanodia of Ganga Pharma Distributors and Mithinti Srinivas of Sri Nandini Pharma were booked on 25 June for distributing spurious variants of Rosuvas F 20 and Rosuvas F 10 – cholesterol-lowering medications falsely labelled as products of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, one of India’s top pharmaceutical brands.
By the afternoon, they had been sent to Chanchalguda Jail under a 14-day judicial remand ordered by the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Nampally.
Until then, arrests in such cases had not been part of the picture. However, this case marked a turning point, with DCA inspectors leading operations on the ground.
The arrests in Hyderabad have since sparked a series of follow-up crackdowns across the state.
On 5 July, DCA officers raided Venu Medical Agencies in Karimnagar, seizing fake Levipil 500 tablets – an anti-epileptic drug, again fraudulently bearing Sun Pharma’s label.
A few days later, on 11 July, R Venu Gopal, the agency’s managing partner, was arrested and remanded until 23 July by the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court in Karimnagar.
Another distributor, Manish Kumar of Arvind Pharma Distributors in Hyderabad, had already been arrested on 4 July in connection with the same Levipil counterfeit batch.
Yet questions remain: does the DCA have the authority to make arrests? Under which law, and what is the process?
The DCA’s newfound authority stems from a 2020 Supreme Court order that clarified an obscure but powerful provision in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The Court affirmed that Drugs Inspectors appointed under Section 21 possess the authority to investigate, arrest, and prosecute offences involving counterfeit, substandard, or misbranded medicines – particularly under Chapter IV of the Act, which covers spurious drugs.
“Dealing in spurious or counterfeit drugs is classified as a cognisable offence. That means arrests can be made, and the court has the power to remand the accused directly,” a Drug Inspector with the DCA explained to South First.
The inspector said that the drugs they seized are counterfeit medicines. “We confirmed this by obtaining a legal opinion from the manufacturer. Their representative from the Quality Assurance team clearly stated that the seized tablets were not manufactured by them,” said the inspector.
The original manufacturers provided the DCA with a comparative analysis – highlighting differences in batch numbers, font size, QR code placement, and packaging.
For example, the QR code on the original product appears in a fixed location, while on the fake tablets, it is placed elsewhere. The typography and layout also do not match.
“Based on this evidence, we invoked Section 17B(e) of the Act, which defines a counterfeit drug as one that falsely purports to be a product of a manufacturer of whom it is not truly a product,” the inspector said.
“To put it simply, it’s like seeing a duplicate of a branded soap. It may carry the name and logo, but it’s not made by the actual company. The same principle applies here with these tablets.”
The punishment for such an offence falls under Section 27(c) of the Act, which prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years, extendable to life imprisonment, especially if the counterfeit drug causes death.
There is also provision for a monetary fine, which can be calculated based on the value of the confiscated stock.
“Once we determine that the offence is cognisable, we follow the arrest and remand procedure as per CrPC and the new BNSS [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita] provisions. We take the assistance of the local police station and conduct a medical examination of the accused at Gandhi Hospital or Osmania Hospital,” the inspector said.
“Once declared medically fit, the accused is produced before the magistrate – we submit all supporting evidence, including the comparative analysis, batch records, and drug samples.”
He further added that if the court is satisfied, it grants judicial remand, typically for 14 days. “After that, we take the accused to jail, submit the medical report, the remand order, and hand over custody to the jail authorities.”
Despite this newfound authority, the recent arrests have been a complex and resource-intensive process, with Drug Inspectors often stretched beyond their usual responsibilities and working without institutional support.
“The question is not just about arrest powers – it’s also about the process and the resources,” another Drug Inspector involved in the raids told South First.
“In the Arvind Pharma case, there were just four officers that executed the arrest. They handled everything themselves, from preparing the remand report to escorting the accused to Gandhi Hospital for the medical examination. The Drug Inspector, along with the Investigating Officer, took the accused to jail. They met the jailer, explained the facts, and only after that did he agree to take the person into custody.”
He said they are operating with no additional manpower. The entire burden falls on them.
“We must convince the judge for a 14-day remand. That’s not a routine request. Under Article 21 of the Constitution, we are seeking to take away a person’s liberty. So we need to present clear evidence and justify the arrest. Unless the magistrate is convinced, the remand won’t be granted,” he explained.
He also pointed out that the Drug Inspectors have to make legal arguments in court themselves – including citing Supreme Court judgments – because, as he put it: “With due respect, public prosecutors mainly focus on criminal law. They don’t always understand the nuances of drug law. So we represent the case directly.”
And then there’s the question of their safety.
“We don’t have any security detail. What if the person being arrested turns violent during the operation? Or later retaliates? There is no armed protection, no escort, no backup,” he said.
“If something happens to us, no one is held accountable. We are putting ourselves on the line every time we carry out an arrest.”
Furthermore, Drug Inspectors say they operate under severe constraints compared to regular law enforcement agencies – from lack of police support to inadequate infrastructure.
“In ED or Income Tax cases, officers are backed by local police or security forces. But for us? It’s nearly impossible. The local SHO usually refuses. He says, ‘Why should we give you police protection? This is your case. Drug and cosmetic violations aren’t criminal cases under our purview.’ Even with pressure from our higher-ups, they might send just one constable, and that too reluctantly,” said the second Drug Inspector.
The first Drug Inspector also mentioned that the drug officials do not have lock-ups.
“So if we apprehend someone, where do we keep them? We can’t bring them to our homes. Until we produce them before a magistrate within 24 hours, we must feed them, give medicines if needed, and ensure humane treatment as per principles of natural justice. But the infrastructure to do this simply doesn’t exist,” he added.
Medical examination is another exhausting process. “We have to take them to Gandhi or Osmania Hospital, wait until vitals like BP stabilise. If anything happens to the accused while in our custody, even a minor injury, the blame falls on us,” he explained.
He also pointed out that there is no security for the officers. These offenders are not small-time players.
“They’ve been in the business for 40–50 years, with deep networks. What happens if they retaliate later? We don’t have weapons, escorts, or protection. We’re risking our lives with every arrest.”
Then there’s the legal side.
“We have to write the remand report, represent the case in court, and convince the judge for a 14-day judicial remand. It’s not a trivial ask. We are seeking to take away someone’s liberty, so we must build a strong case and argue it ourselves. Public prosecutors often lack knowledge of drug law, so we can’t rely on them,” said the first Drug Inspector.
In most raids, it’s just one or two inspectors handling everything – the raid, seizure, medicals, legal paperwork, courtroom arguments, and jail handover.
“We’re stretched to the limit. And yet, in court, the accused simply says, ‘This case was filed because of money issues or a failed deal,’ and the entire operation is questioned. We’re only trying to uphold the law in public interest but we feel completely exposed,” he said.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
