SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition is for quashing of complaint dated 31. 8. 1994 Annexure P-1, the summoning order dated 31. 8. 1994 Annexure P-2 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom. The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for stocking and dispensing allopathic drugs in violation of Sections 18 (c) and 18 (a) read with Sections 27 (b) (ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner holds a valid registration certificate, issued by the State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines, Bihar, a council duly registered under the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines Act, 1951, bearing Registration No. 104360. Being a registered medical practitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970, he would fall within the definition of registered medical practitioner as defined in Section 2 (ee) (ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and would therefore, be entitled in law to dispense and stock allopathic medicines. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court, AIR 1999 SC 468.

(3.) ANOTHER contention pressed into service by the Counsel for the petitioner is that the summoning order is non-speaking. It is argued that an order summoning an accused is a judicial order and must not only disclose reasons but also the process of reasoning that led the Court to pass such an order. It is contended that the mere fact that a complaint has been filed by a Government official, cannot be reason enough, to pass an order of summoning, without assigning any reason.