DRUGS INSPECTOR Vs. CHIMANLAL AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case comes before us on a reference made by Newaskar and Sen JJ. who found themselves unable to concur in the view expressed in the following observations made by another Division Bench of this court in State v. Daulatsingh, air 1957 Madh Pra 72.

(2.) THE facts of the case so far as they are necessary for this reference may be shortly stated. In virtue of the powers conferred upon the Drugs Inspector under section 32 of the Drugs Act, 1940, he instituted, by means of a complaint filed by him, a prosecution against the respondents for contravening the provisions of section 18 of that Act and thereby committing offences punishable under Section 27 thereof. The respondents, who had been convicted and sentenced to pay fines for the offences committed by them, were acquitted in appeal. The Drugs inspector then appealed against the acquittal after applying for, and obtaining, special leave so to do under Sub-section (3) of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal procedure. When the appeal came up for hearing before Newaskar and Sen JJ. the respondents raised a preliminary objection grounded upon the observations reproduced earlier that the special leave obtained in this case could not have been given to the Drugs Inspector, who, being a public servant, had filed the complaint in the discharge of his duty as a public servant Thereupon, as indicated earlier, newaskar and Sen JJ. made this reference.

(3.) WE may state at the outset that in AIR 1957 Madh Pra 72 (Supra) the application for special leave under Sub-section (3) of Section 417 of the Code wan made by the State itself, Since, as provided by Sub-section (1) of Section 417 of the Code, the State could directly appeal against acquittal "in any case" including a case instituted upon a complaint, without being obliged to obtain special leave, the application could be dismissed on that short ground and it was not necessary to consider whether a public servant, who had filed a complaint in the discharge of his duty as a public servant, was entitled to apply for special leave under Subsection (3) of Section 417 of the Code. Even so, since the question arises directly and is of general importance, we proceed to consider it.