MUNISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioners seek quashing of the complaint (Annexure P1) filed under Section 18(c) read with Sections 61 and 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Drugs Act) and the orders dated 3/1/1995 (Annexure P2) and 14/3/1996 (Annexure P3) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar respectively.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are the partners of petitioner No. 5 firm. On 16.7.1991, a complaint was filed by the District Drugs Inspector, Hisar against the petitioners under Section 18(c) read with Sections 61 and 18(l)(i) of the Drugs Act alleging therein that on 17.8.1988, a raid was conducted on the business premises of petitioner No. 5 firm. In the said raid, some allopathic drugs i.e. Avil and Anacin were found in the business premises of the firm. It was alleged that without obtaining any licence under Rule 61 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the firm was selling the allopathic medicine. It was further alleged that as per report of the Government Analyst Haryana, Chandigarh, drugs seized from the business premises of the petitioners were found to be of unstandard quality. On the day of filing the complaint i.e. 16. 7.1991, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took the cognizance of the said complaint and issued summons to the petitioners.

(3.) The pre-charge evidence of the complainant was recorded. The petitioners raised objections regarding framing of charges against them on various grounds including that on 16.7.199 1, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar was not competent to take cognizance of the matter as he was not specifically empowered by the State Government under Section 36A of the Drugs Act to take cognizance of such offences under the Drugs Act, which are punishable with imprisonment upto three years. All the offences alleged against the petitioners are also punishable with imprisonment upto three years, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar, who took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the petitioners was not empowered by the State Government under Section 36A of the Drugs Act to try such offences. The State Government issued notification only on 20.9.1991 under Section 36A of the Drugs Act conferring powers on the Judicial Magistrates, 1st Class including the Chief Judicial Magistrates in the State of Haryana who were for the time being exercising summary powers under Section 260 of the Code. While rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 3.1.1995 (Annexure P2) framed charges against all the petitioners for commission of offence punishable under Sections 27(b)(ii), 27(d) and 28A of the Drugs Act. Against that order, the petitioners filed revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.3.1996 (Annexure P3). Hence, this petition under Section 482 of the Code for quashing the complaint as well as the aforesaid orders.