IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that offences punishable under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act are triable by the Court of Sessions and not by the Magistrate.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

Drug Inspector, District Kangra, H.P. inspected the premises of the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) on 27.5.2014 and found various allopathic drugs stocked, exhibited and offered for sale in the petitioner’s shop. The petitioner was present at the time of the inspection. The drug Inspector asked him to produce the document authorizing him to possess the drugs or to produce a valid certificate of a registered medical practitioner to practice the allopathic system of medicine. The petitioner produced two certificates from the Para Medical Science Council, Punjab in Community Medical Services, a Press Card, and one experience certificate from Karan Hospital. The drug Inspector seized the photocopies of these documents. The petitioner could not produce any valid certificate of a registered medical practitioner to practice in the allopathic system of medicine or any license to possess the drugs. The drugs were seized for 20 days on Form-15 in the presence of Tilak Raj and Anuj Kumar. A Show Cause Notice was given to the petitioner to produce the record of the possession of the drugs. The petitioner sought an extension and thereafter produced two purchase invoices of Vee Kay Pharmaceuticals, Kangra on 27.5.2014. However, the petitioner could not produce any drug licence to stock the allopathic drugs for sale or a valid certificate of registered medical practitioner. The drugs were seized as per the Rules and a complaint was filed after obtaining the sanction.

2. The case was committed to the learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, who framed the charges vide order dated 24.11.2021.

3. Being aggrieved from the order framing the charges, the present petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. It was asserted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly consider the present matter. The petitioner had produced two purchase invoices and there was sufficient compliance with Section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The matter should have been tried by the learned Magistrate as per Section 36 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The learned Special Judge erred in framing the charges and trying the matter. Therefore, it was prayed that the order passed by learned Special Judge be set aside and the matter be remitted to the learned Magistrate.

4. The petition is opposed by filing a reply making a preliminary submission regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. It was asserted that the learned Trial Court had rightly framed the charges. It was admitted that two purchase invoices were produced by the petitioner. The clinic was being run in violation of Sections 18, 18(c) and 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without a valid licence or a certificate of a registered medical practitioner. The offence committed by the petitioner falls under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and is to be tried by a Court not inferior to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have heard Mr. Paras Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State.

6. Mr. Paras Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had produced the invoices showing the purchase of the drugs. Learned Special Judge erred in framing the charges for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The offence punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is to be tried by the Court of Magistrate and learned Special Judge erred in trying the same. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed the order passed by learned Special Judge be set aside and the matter be remitted to the learned Magistrate. He relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M/s Lenit Pharmaceuticals Vs. State. Cr. Petition No. 102391/2019, deci