OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, both these petitions are disposed of as these are filed against the identical order.

(2.) Admittedly the petitioner in Crl. M. (M) 397/2000 who is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences had prescribed ayurvedic medicines to some patients. One of the patients purchased the said medicines from the shop of co-accused which was later on found to be spurious and fake. By impugned order dated 10.12.1999, learned Metropolitan Magistrate ordered for framing the charges by finding that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner among other co-accused for the offence under Section - 33 I(1)(a)(ii) and (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Section 120B IPC and under Section 275 and 276 IPC.

(3.) Through this petition, the legality of the impugned order has been challenged solely on the ground that the complaint was instituted by an Inspector who was not authorised to institute the complaint without the previous sanction of the authority specified under Sub-section (4) of Section 33(G) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Sub- section (4) of Section 33(G) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provides that "every Inspector shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code and shall be officially sub-ordinate to such authority as the Government appointing him may specify in this behalf."