SURINDER KUMAR TUTEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking quashment of complaint Annexure P-1 filed by the Drug Inspector, Karnal, against him under section 18(C) read with rule 61 punishable under section 27(b)(ii) and under section 18(A) punishable under section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, the Act) and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, charge sheet Annexure P-2 and consequent proceedings.

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that when the complainant visited the shop of the petitioner in the months of November and December, 1986, he found that some allopathic drugs were stocked for sale, for which the petitioner could not produce purchase bills. Notice under section 18-A and another notice under section 18-C of the Act were given to the accused, to which he failed to give any reply. He is not a registered Medical Practitioner within the meaning of rule 2 (ee) of the aforesaid Rules. He was also found selling, stocking or exhibiting for sale and offering for sale and distributing drugs without a licence and thus was indulging in un-authorised medical practice. Hence a complaint under the aforesaid sections was filed by the complainant in the Court of Shri SK Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Panipat. Vide order Annexure P-2 Shri S.K Gupta, J.M.I.C., Panipat, framed charges against the petitioner under section 27(b)(ii) read with section 18-C and under section 28 read with section 18-A of the Act.

(3.) The petitioners contention is that by Amendment Act N 0.68 of 1982 Section 36-A of the Act is amended and it is provided that offences under the Act punishable with imprisonment for 1. a term not exceeding three years other than an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of 4 section 33-1 of the Act shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government. His contention is that by notification dated September 20, 1991, State Government of Haryana has empowered all Judicial Magistrates, 1st Class including Chief Judicial Magistrate to try offences under the Act in a summary way, which are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 33-1 of the Act. The complaint Annexure P-1 was filed on December 22, 1987, and charges against the petitioner were framed by Shri SK Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, on February 5, 1992. Thus, according to him, on the date on which the complaint was filed in the Court of Shri SK Gupta, he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this complaint as till then he was not authorised by the State Government to take cognizance of such an offence. To support this contention, petitioners learned counsel has relied on Jitender Kumar Nagar v. State of Haryana, Dr. (Mrs.) Kaushalya Malhotra v. State of Haryana Shiv Lal Yadau v. The State of Haryana and Dr. Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana.