ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to quash complaint dated March 18, 1988, Annexure P-1 under Sections 18(c), 18(A) and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) respectively of the said Act.

(2.) THE basic point urged to quash the complaint as also charge-sheet is that the Magistrate dealing with the matter had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it is only by virtue of notification dated September 20, 1991 that powers were vested with the said Magistrate to entertain and try complaints under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. For his aforesaid contention, learned Counsel relied on a decision of this Court in Kaushalya Malhotra v. State of Haryana, 1994(1) Recent CR 345. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has not been able to dispute the contention of the learned counsel on facts i.e. with regard to jurisdiction of Magistrate dealing with the matter nor has been able to show any rules or judicial precedent taking a view contrary to the one reflected in Kaushalya Malhotra's case (supra). That being so the complaint as well as subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioner have to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. Disposed of accordingly.