STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. CHATRABHUJ KESHAVJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application has been preferred by the State Government under section 397 read with section 401 CRPC against the order dated 13th September, 1985, made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavadar, below complaint Ex. 1 in Criminal Case No. 719/85.

(2.) Upon inspection made by the Drugs Inspector on 25th November, 1982, the accused firm was found to be in possession of mis-branded drugs. The Firm and the partners therein were thus alleged to have acted in contravention of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which is an offence punishable under section 27 of the Act. A complaint in that regard was lodged by the Drugs Inspector before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manavadar, on 16th November, 1984. Under his order dated 22nd November, 1984, the learned Magistrate observed that against three of the accused persons, a police complaint was lodged and a chargesheet was also received by the Magistrate. He was, therefore, of the opinion that since the police had already lodged a complaint, cognizance of offence againt those three accused persons was not required to be taken pursuant to the complaint lodged by the Drugs Inspector. He, therefore, directed that the complaint against three accused persons against whom a police complaint was received and the chargesheet was also filed, be dismissed and the cognizance of the offence be taken against the remaining two accused. Feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred the present Revision Application.

(3.) The learned Magistrate appears to be of the opinion that the Drugs Inspector who has been empowered to lodge complaint with respect to the offence under the Act can lodge complaint either before the court or before the police as well. A Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence upon report made by the Police pursuant to the complaint lodged before the police. Such an action is in compliance with section 32 of the Act and no fresh complaint was required to be made by the Drugs Inspector before the court. He, therefore, dismissed the complaint as against three accused persons against whom the police had already submitted the chargesheet and as the Criminal Case No. 369/84 was registered against those three persons.