JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---This revision application is filed by the State against the order of discharge of the respondents-accused passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate's 6th Court, Magaon, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 145/S/88 on 29th July, 1993.

2. This revision application arises from the following facts :

The respondents were tried for offence under section 18(c) read with punishing section 27 and section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. On the basis of the information received by the Drug Inspector that M/s. Godama Laboratories, Malad (W), Bombay 400 064 manufacturing for sale and selling tablets called "Dolmiran" at their factory premises without permission or licence as required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, he visited the premises of M/s. Hermes Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. on 27-6-1985 and made enquiry regarding the sale and purchase of the said tablets and prohibited the sale of 100 boxes of the said drug. Complaint was lodged on 3-7-1985 under section 8(c) of the Act. The raiding party had visited the premises of manufacturers of the said drug M/s. Godama Laboratories and of M/s. Hermes Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd. on 3-7-1985. They also visited the premises of respondents on 4-7-1985 and seized various incriminating documents pertaining to transaction of Dolmiran Tablets. They found that the respondents had no licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for stocking for sale and selling the drug in question. The record revealed that the tablets in question were purchased by the respondents from M/s. Godama Laboratories and had exported the same to some party in Aden, a Gulf country.

3. In the present case only respondents who are the exporters have been prosecuted as aforesaid. The respondents applied for discharge before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and they came to be discharged by the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, that the Drug Inspector was not duly appointed and, therefore, not authorised to exercise powers under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and, therefore, the prosecution was liable to be quashed against the respondents. Secondly, according to the learned Magistrate the drug which was seized from the respondents was not meant for sale in India but only meant for export to another country and, therefore, there was no violation of section 18(c) of the Act. On behalf of the State, apart from the revision application filed against the impugned order, an affidavit dated 22nd August, 2000 has been filed by another Drug Inspector annexing copies of the notifications appointing the concerned Drug Inspector by name Shri S.R. Bankar, who had filed complaint against the respondents.

4. Mr. Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, supports the impugned order by reiterating the two grounds on the basis of which the order of discharge was based. He firstly contended that as per section 21 of the Act the Drug Inspector who has the powers under the provisions of the Act, namely, section 22 of the Act must be appointed by either the Central Government or the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette specifying the areas that may be assigned to him for exercise of powers under the provisions of the Act.

5. In this regard the State has annexed a copy of the Government Resolution dated 20th February, 1975 whereby at Sr. No. 12 the concerned Drug Inspector Shri S.R. Bankar was appointed for the Pen area of the then District of Kolaba, presently Raigad. The State has also annexed subsequent Government Resolution dated 17th October, 1983 whereby the said Drug Inspector came to be transferred from his then posting at Satara to Head Quarters (IB), Mumbai with effect from 24th May, 1983. The contention of Mr. Sawant is that in Greater Mumbai there are several Drug Inspectors and each Drug Inspector is operating in a specified area and not exercising his powers all over Greater Mumbai and, therefore, the GR dated 17th October, 1983 transferrin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document