Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

The State of Maharashtra has preferred this Appeal under Section 36AB of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane in Regular Criminal Case No.190 of 1994.

2. Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the Respondents.

3. The only point which needs to be answered is as to whether P.W.1State Drug Inspector was competent to search on 9.4.1993 the premises of Accused No.1 and institute the prosecution under Section 32 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.

4. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'Said Act') defines expression 'Inspector" in Section 3(3)(e)(ii) thus,

"3(3)(e)(ii) in relation to any other drug or cosmetic, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Government under Section 21;"

5. Section 21 of the said Act empowers the Central or a State Government to appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications, to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them by issuing notification in the Official Gazette.

6. Under Section 32 of the Said Act, Inspector is authorised to institute prosecution against the person having committed the offence under the said Act.

7. From the aforesaid provisions, a drug inspector is empowered to discharge his official duties under the said Act once his appointment is notified in the Official Gazette.

In other words, even if his appointment is prior to the date of Notification, he is not empowered to discharge his duties, much less, alleged prosecution. In the case in hand, P.W.1 Shri Shaikh was appointed as Drug Inspector on 1.8.1992 for the Thane area; however, his appointment was notified in terms of Section 21 of the said Act in the Official Gazette on 7.10.1993. It is not in dispute that Mr. Shaikh had conducted searched the premises of Accused No.1 in April, 1993, a date on which his appointment was not notified in the Official Gazette. Besides, record shows that he had collected samples from the shop premises of Respondent No.1 on 12.4.1992 and 19.4.1992, a date much prior to the date on which his appointment was notified in the Official Gazette. Thus, in sum and substance, date on which he had conducted raid and searched the premises of the accused no.1, he was not 'Inspector' within the meaning of Section 21 of the said Act.

8. Thus, in view of the facts aforesaid, I have no manner of doubt to hold that prosecution instituted by P.W.1 on the basis of which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate was obviously without jurisdiction. Though the prosecution was instituted on 29.3.1994, it would relate back to the date on which offence allegedly committed by the accused herein. In view of this, it is to be held that complaint was without any authority and, therefore, bad in law.

9. This Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. R.A. Chandawarkar and Others,1999 DC 94 (Drug Cases) has held in paragraphs 40 and 42 as under :

"40. It is to be noted here that the provision of section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, makes it abundantly clear that the post of Drug Inspector is a very vital public post with wide range of powers to take samples and seize the samples and prosecute the persons for selling the adulterours, suprious and substandard quality drugs. In view of such vital powers conferred by section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on such Drug Inspectors, the said section clearly, mandates that the Central Government or the State Government, may issue notification in Official Gazatte so as to appoint such Drug Inspectors for such areas as assigned to them. The intention of the legislature is very clear from the said section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 that the appointment of such a person holding such an important post as a Drug Inspector, especially in the interest of public heath, obviously will