JUDGMENT

Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:

"Set aside the order dated 31.01.2004 passes by Sh. S.K. Sharma, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and quash the proceedings in case titled "State Vs. Shiv Charan Gupta and others" pending in the court of Sh. Chandrashekhar, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi."

2. The facts in brief are, on 21.08.2003 an FIR No.399/03 under Section 186/353/506/34 IPC was registered at P.S. Defence Colony on the statement of Sh.Atul Kumar Nasa, Drug Inspector.

3. During the investigation conducted by the police, Section 22(3) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was also added. Accordingly, the charge-sheet was filed in the concerned Court, who took cognizance on 31.01.2004, thereafter, the matter was proceeded further.

4. The petitioner challenged the cognizance order dated 31.01.2004 by the instant Crl.M.C. and on the first day i.e. 08.05.2006 the proceedings were stayed till further orders and finally vide order dated 19.02.2008 an interim order passed on 08.05.2006 was made absolute.

5. On 21.08.2003 at about 04:00 PM Sh.Atul Kumar Nasa, Drugs Inspector and his colleagues, as part of their official duty visited the premises M/s Shiv Shore, Shop No.20, Defence Colony Market, New Delhi. Three persons were present in the shop namely, one Shiv Charan Gupta @ Ajay, Brij Mohan Gupta @ Anil and Devendra Kumar Gupta. All the above mentioned three persons prevented Sh.Atul Kumar, Drugs Inspector from inspecting and examining the purchase and sale records etc. They physically pushed Sh.Atul Kumar Nasa out of the shop, further they threatened him by using abusive language. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged on the complaint made by Sh.Atul Kumar and the accused persons were arrested, and thereafter, they were released on bail.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised legal issues that, Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provide cognizance of offence as under:

"Cognizance of offences: (1) No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by:

(a) an Inspector; or

(b) any gazetted officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized 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.

(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.

(3) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this Chapter."

7. Further he submits that under Section 22(3) if any person wilfully obstructs an Inspector in the exercise of the powers conferred upon him by or under this Chapter [or refuses to produce any record, register or other document when so required under clause (c) of sub-section (1)] he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

8. Under Section 3 (e) (II) the definition of Drugs Inspector is given which reads as under:

"Inspector" means

(i) in relation to [Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani] drug, an Inspector appointed by the Central Government or a State Government under Section 33G; and

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

9. Learned counsel has pointed out that under Section 186 IPC provides as under:

"Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions: Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."

10. Further