(1.) Petitioners have assailed the complaint filed by the respondents against them for alleging commission of offences under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act'), and also the order dtd. 26/3/2018, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, whereby cognizance in the complaint has been taken and process has been issued against the petitioners.
(2.) The Assessing Authority, Commercial Taxes Check Post, Lakhanpur, on the basis of information received, withheld a drug consignment on 12/4/2017. The respondents seized 17,600 capsules of the drug namely SPASMO-PROXYVON PLUS were seized, which were kept in a briefcase found during the search of a truck. This consignment was recovered from the truck bearing registration No. JK01AB-4741, driven by petitioner No. 3. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 did not furnish the desired details and information i.e. name, address and particulars of person from whom they had acquired the above. The consigner and consignee were alleged to have committed offences punishable under Ss. 18-A and 18(c) read with Ss. 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners under Sec. 18-A, 18(c) read with Ss. 27(b)(ii) and 28 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, who, vide order dtd. 26/3/2018, recorded satisfaction that offences under Ss. 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act were prima facie made out against the petitioners, and took cognizance of the same and issue process against them.
(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that cognizance order dtd. 26/3/2018 has been passed by the trial court without any application of mind. The complaint filed before the trial court is under Sec. 18-A and 18(c) read with Ss. 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The cognizance of offences under Ss. 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act can only be taken by the Court of Sessions. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance or to proceed with the complaint.