Only authorized individuals can initiate prosecutions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and the police authorities do not have the power to arrest, seize, or search under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Varale, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. The petitioner, by way of present writ petition, prays for quashing and setting aside the F.I.R./Crime No. 0489/2017, registered at Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar on 23.08.2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 18(c), 18(a) (1), 17(b) and 17-A(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and under Sections 175, 274, 275, 276 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, in pursuance of the complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 -Arjun Shivaji Sarkale, Drugs Inspector, Food and Drugs Administration, Ahmednagar.

3. The brief facts, giving rise to the petition, can be summarised as follows:

On 09.12.2016, Respondent No. 2 -Atish Shivaji Sarkale, Drugs Inspector along with Mr. J.H. Shaikh, Drugs Inspector with other colleagues visited the residential premises of the petitioner found stock of allopathic tablets without any label. Respondent No. 2 drawn samples for the purposes of analysis in Form No. 17 on 09.12.2016. Respondent No. 2 requested for an action by submitting Complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. The Complaint was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 1193 of 2016. The Form No. 17 and alleged panchanama of seizure were submitted before the Court. A communication was issued to the petitioner by Respondent No. 2 on 15.12.2016 and the petitioner submitted his clarification to the communication on or about 26.12.2016. On receiving sample result, notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.04.2017 along with copies of chemical analysis report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice on or about 03.05.2017 denying the contents of the notice.

4. Respondent No. 2 then approached Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar, and lodged a Complaint on 23.08.2017 reiterating the above referred facts and alleging that the petitioner was selling the tablets/drugs without any permission, which is dangerous to human life. On receipt of the Complaint, F.I.R./Crime No. 0489/2017 came to be registered against the petitioner at Pathardi Police Station, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 18(c), 18(a) (i) and 17-A(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and under Sections 175, 274, 275, 276 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of registration of F.I.R., the police authorities took cognizance and are behind the petitioner.

6. In challenge to the above referred F.I.R., Mr. Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted before this Court that the entire exercise of registration of the F.I.R. and consequent action of the police authorities, who are behind the petitioner, is unsustainable. Mr. Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a ground that the lodging of the F.I.R. by Respondent No. 2 is an act of lack of powers and thus the sum and substance of his submission is that Respondent No. 2 exceeded his powers.

7. It is the submission of Mr. Sapkal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and more particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 32, no prosecution could have been launched/instituted except by-

(a) an Inspector; or (b) any Gazetted Officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government; or

(c) the person aggrieved; or (d) a recognised consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not.

8. Our attention is also invited to sub-section (2) of Section 32 and the same reads thus:

32 Cognizance of offences:-

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter.

9. Based on the reading of aforesaid provision, Mr. Sap