CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ANIL KUMAR SEN, A. P. BHATTACHARYA, JJ.
THE STATE
VERSUS
BEJOY KR. CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS
Criminal Reference No.3 of 1976,
Decided On : 16 -12 -1976.
Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Jurisdiction - Offence under S.27(b) - Exclusively triable by Court of Session - S.26(b) of Cr.P.C. - S.36 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act - Interpretation.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with an offence under S.27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which was punishable with imprisonment for life. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, but the Judge, City Sessions Court, transferred the case to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, holding that the offence was not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate then referred the question of law to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the offence under S.27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Court interpreted S.26(b) of the Cr.P.C. and the first schedule of the Cr.P.C. to hold that offences punishable with imprisonment for more than 7 years are triable by the Court of Session. The Court also held that S.36 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which empowers Presidency Magistrates and Magistrates of the 1st Class to impose sentences in excess of their powers under the Cr.P.C., does not confer jurisdiction on such Magistrates to try offences under the Act.
Issues: Whether the offence under S.27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the offence under S.27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Session because: * S.26(b) of the Cr.P.C. provides that offences under any other law shall be tried by the Court of Session when no Court is mentioned in the law. * The first schedule of the Cr.P.C. prescribes that offences punishable with imprisonment for more than 7 years are triable by the Court of Session. * S.36 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which empowers Presidency Magistrates and Magistrates of the 1st Class to impose sentences in excess of their powers under the Cr.P.C., does not confer jurisdiction on such Magistrates to try offences under the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court answered the question of law referred to it in the manner indicated above. The Court also set aside the order of the Judge, City Sessions Court, transferring the case to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and directed that the order of commitment dated September 9, 1975 would stand and the learned Judge, City Sessions Court must now proceed to try the case.
Anil K. Sen, J.:- This reference under S.395 (2) of the Cr. P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the new Code) by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta raises a question of law on which there has been a sharp difference of opinion between the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Judge, City Sessions Court at Calcutta, 4th Bench. The question involved is as to whether an offence under S.27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) is exclusively triable by the Court of Session or not.
2. The facts leading to the making of the reference may shortly be stated:
On November 12, 1974 the police seized from the possession of Bijoy Kumar Chatterjee and Joydev Chatterjee (2nd party in this letter of reference) a huge quantity of various brands of medicines marked for physician's sample stocked by them for sale in violation of R.65 (18) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. As a result the police submitted a charge-sheet under S.27 (b) of the said Act and S.120-B of the Indian Penal Code against them. It is not in dispute that such an offence under S.27 (b) of the said Act as it stands amended by the Prevention of Adulteration of Food, Drugs and Cosmetics (West Bengal Amendment) Act (West Bengal Act 42 of 1973 S.5, Cl. (iii)) in its application to West Bengal is punishable with imprisonment for life or with fine or with both. Prior to the Amendment such an offence was punishable with imprisonment for a term which could extend to ten years or with fine or with both. The offence being punishable with imprisonment for life, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took the view that it was exclusively triable by the Court of Session and as such he by an order dated September 9, 1975 committed the accused persons to the Court of Session.
3. When the case (being the Sessions Case No. 36 of 1975) came up for trial before the learned Judge, City Sessions Court, 4th Bench two petitions were filed, one on behalf of the Public Prosecutor and the other on behalf of the accused persons praying for transferring the case for trial to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground that the offence is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The learned Judge, City Sessions Court conceded this prayer and by an order dated Feb. 9, 1976 transferred the case for trial to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the provisions of S.228 (1) (a) of the new Code.
4. The case having been sent back to the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Public Prosecutor appearing before him, however, took the stand that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, the offence being punishable with imprisonment for the life. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate agreed with the Public Prosecutor and took the view that he had not the jurisdiction to try the case. Hence he made the reference as aforesaid to this Court for deciding the issue on which the two Courts had differed viz. as to whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session or not.
5. Inconsistent stand having been taken by the two Public Prosecutors appearing before the two Courts, we thought it necessary to hear both of them in support of their respective view point. We have also heard the learned Advocate for the State appearing before us in this Court and Mr. Dey, the learned Advocate for the accused persons. On anxious consideration of the respective contentions put forward before us on the point we have, however, come to the conclusion that the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is correct and we proceed to give our reasons therefor.
6. Section 26 (b) of the new Code which corresponds to S.29 of the Criminal P.C., 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the old Code) is as follows:
"26. Subject to the other provisions of this Code ... ..... .... .... .... ....
.... ` ... ... .... .... ....
.... .... ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.