SATISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 54 dated 2.3.2003 under Sections 17/17A/17B/18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") registered at P.S. Chandhat, District Faridabad.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 24.2.2003 Dr. S.D. Bagga, District Medical Officer, Shri. R.K. Chugh, Senior Drug Inspector and Sh. N.K. Ahuja, District Drug Inspector visited the Chaudhary Clinic, Amarpur Road, Alwalpur, Tehsil Palwal, Faridabad and made enquiry. Satish Chand son of Balbir Singh was present there at that time. Chandan Singh son of Firdwar was not found there. The inspecting team found 26 types of drugs on the spot. Satish Chand could not produce any bill regarding the purchase of those drugs/medicines. The raid was conducted in the presence of Parkash and Kishan Singh, Panches of village Alwalpur. Their statements were also recorded. It is further case of the prosecution that petitioner has supplied an injection to Sahun son of the complainant Ruddar and on the administration of that injection, grievous injury was developed on the thumb of Sahun due to which his thumb has to be amputated.

(3.) MR . D.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had declined pre-arrest bail to the petitioner without appreciating the fact that offence under the Act is non-cognizable and no FIR can be registered against the person under the Act and only a complaint can be filed before the Magistrate. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 846. He further submitted that under Section 17/17-A/17-B of the Act, no case is made out against the petitioner as these sections pertain to manufacture, sale and purchase of misbranded, adulterated and spurious drugs. He contended that neither any mis-branded nor adulterated or spurious drugs have been recovered from the place or recovery. He further submitted that the Drug Inspector issued show-cause notice to the petitioner under section 18 of the Act and the reply was to be filed within ten days. He pointed out that without waiting for the reply of the petitioner within the specified period, present FIR has been registered.