MOHAN LAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Drugs Inspector who investigated into an offence and who also filed the complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) can be permitted to conduct the prosecution in the case.

(2.) The petitioner herein is a proprietor of a firm of licensed drugs. Shri G.P. Saxena is a Drugs Inspector appointed under Sec. 21 of the Act. Under Sec. 22 of the Act, he has got the power within the local limits of the area for which he is appointed to inspect any premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being manufactured and to take samples of any drug or cosmetic which is being manufactured or sold or stocked or exhibited for sale or is being distributed. In exercise of these powers, Shri G.P. Saxena inspected the business premises of the petitioner on 11.7.1968 and purchased a sample of Tedral Tablets purporting to have been manufactured by M/s. Martin and Harris (Pvt.) Ltd. After following the procedure prescribed under Sec. 23 of the Act, he sent a portion of the sample for analysis (to the analyst) and the latter after testing the sample reported that the sample was misbranded. Therefore, a complaint was filed by Mr. Saxena against the petitioner for an offence which is punishable under Sections 27 and 28 read with Sections 18 (a) (ii) and 18A of the Act. When the Inspector wanted to conduct the prosecution himself, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner raising an objection that Shri Saxena Inspector who had investigated into the case and also filed the complaint should not be permitted to conduct the prosecution. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 21.8.1970. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision petition in the Court of Session, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard this revision petition dismissed the same. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition in this Court.

(3.) Shri D. R. Sethi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to rely upon the provisions of Sec. 495, Code Criminal Procedure in support of has contention that Shri Saxena the Drugs Inspector is disqualified from conducting the prosecution against the petitioner. The relevant provisions of Sec. 495. Code Criminal Procedure are sub-sections (1) and (4). Sub-section (1) reads as follows:-