SHRI AVADHESH SHARMA, S/O SHRI BIHARI SHARMA, AGED 39 YEARS, CASTE BRAHMIN, RESIDENT OF 974, SHANTI NAGAR, DURGAPURA, POLICE STATION SHIPRA PATH, JAIPUR Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has arisen out of order dated 11.03.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 45/2016 whereby he has directed to frame charges under different sections of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1940) along with Sec. 420 and 487 of the IPC.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case necessary for deciding of this matter, are that on 03.11.2015 Shri Vachan Singh Meena, Drug Control Officer, Jaipur submitted a written complaint before SHO Police Station Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur to the effect that on 02.11.2015 on the directions of Drug Controller, he along with other officials went on the premises of M/s Assent Pharmaceuticals Distributers and Osheen Auganics situated near Durgapura Railway Station, Durgapura for inspection. He conducted the inspection as per rule and collected samples on suspecting the drugs to be spurious etc. and concluded that the petitioner is manufacturing and possessing for sale spurious drugs and he has committed offences of Indian Penal Code and the Act of 1940. On this complaint, SHO registered FIR No. 718/2015, conducted an investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner before Magistrate of the jurisdiction who, in turn committed the same to the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Sec. 32 of the Act of 1940, cognizance for offences punishable under the Act can be taken on prosecution instituted by a Drug Inspector or any gazetted officer authorised in this behalf of Central or State Government or the person aggrieved or by a recognised consumer association. As per this provision, police has not been authorised to institute the prosecution for such offences. The cognizance taken on a charge sheet filed by police, after investigation under Sec. 173 Crimial P.C., is bad in law and such cognizance is liable to be quased. In support, he has cited a judgment dated 10.10.2016 passed by Bombay High Court Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 846 of 2016, Rajendra Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.