1. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Present writ application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the first information report of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 716 of 2005 corresponding to G. R. No. 3911 of 2005 registered under Secs. 307, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Secs. 9, 9A, B, C, D, 13(l)(a), (b), (c), (d), 27A and 28B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and 13(1) of the Drugs and Control Act, 1950. Further prayer of the petitioners is for direction to release the seized articles, such as manufactured medicines, etc. seized by the Officer-in-charge, Kadamkuan Police Station on 2.9.2005 from the factory premises of the petitioners.

3. On 1.9.2005 Officer-in-Charge of Kadamkuan Police Station in course of raid of some other factory premises manufacturing drugs, came to know about manufacturing of drugs at petitioners premises and when petitioner No. 2 was absent from his factory premises a raid was conducted by the officer-in-charge of Kadamkuan Police Station. In course of raid several articles and medicines were seized. On the next date along with the Drugs Inspectors again factory premises of the petitioners were inspected and on the basis of self-statement of the officer-in-charge of Kadamkuan Police Station First Information Report was drawn and registered bearing Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 716 of 2005.

4. In the First Information Report it has been alleged that when the informant, Ramakant Prasad, Inspector of Police-cum-Officer-in-Charge of Kadamkuan Police Station was raiding some other factory in Rajendra Nagar, Patna, he received a secret information that in M/s. Mammals Drugs, Rajendra Nagar, Road No. 1, Patna, fake and misbranded medicines are being manufactured. Informant visited the premises of M/s. Mammals Drugs, persons who were working there fled away, thereafter, the Drugs Inspectors were called, in their presence premises was inspected and seizure list was prepared. In course of raid it was found that medicines of different brands were being prepared and packed illegally. Manufacturing licence was not fixed at any place or in front of the factory, the manufacturing work was being done in unhealthy manner with an intention to cheat the customers which is dangerous for human life and a cognizable offence. Articles and medicines were seized.

5. Petitioners have challenged such seizure, institution of FIR as well as investigation of the case by the Police Officer on the ground that it is in complete violation of Sec. 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Since the institution of the case is itself illegal and without jurisdiction, no investigation should proceed nor any charge-sheet should have been submitted under Sec. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Sec. 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, reads "No prosecution under this chapter shall be instituted except by an Inspector (or by the person aggrieved or by a recognised Consumer Association whether such person is a member of that Association or not)." Inspector has been defined under Sec. 3(e) of the Act:

3(e) Inspector means. (i) in relation to Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or State Government under Sec. 33G; and

(ii) in relation to other drug or cosmetic an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or State Government under Sec. 21.

7. Since in the present case drugs manufactured at the petitioners premises were neither Ayurvedic nor Siddha or Unani, the Inspector means, an Inspector appointed by the Central or State Government under Sec. 21 of the Act. Sec. 22 of the Act enumerates the power exercised by the Inspectors.

"22(1). Subject to the provisions of Section 23 and of any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, an Inspector may, within the local limits of the area fox which he is appointed: (a) inspect (i) Any premises wherein any drug or cosmetic is being manufactured and the means employed for sta