The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can only be maintained if instituted by an Inspector, the person aggrieved, or a recognized consumer association, as specified in Section 32 of the Act.

By Court - Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Chaibasa Sadar P.S. Case No.110 of 1993 (G.R. No.692 of 1993) including the order dated 08.02.2001 passed by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, In-charge Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, whereby and whereunder he, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 274 and 275 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the petitioner.

3. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of:-

It is the case of the prosecution that there was rumor about the spurious drugs being available in the Store of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, West Singhbhuh, Chaibasa. As soon as Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, came to learn about it, he made request to the Drug Inspector, Jamshedpur to visit the Store and to collect the samples. On such information, the Drug Inspector, on 17.04.1993, collected various drugs including Sulphaguinadine Tab. (bearing Batch No.9001, Mfg. date 3/91 Exp. date 2/96), in presence of P.A. to Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa and also other persons. Thereupon, those drugs were sent for its testing before the Government Analyst, Ghaziabad. The drugs, having been tested by the Analyst, were found of substandard quality.

4. Thereafter, Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chibasa submitted a written report before the Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, Chaibasa. Upon which, a case was registered under Sections 274 and 275 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against this petitioner, who happened to be supplier of the aforesaid drug and also against the Manufacturer namely, Avron Laboratories, Hoogly.

5. On submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 274 and 275 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was taken vide order dated 08.02.2001 against the petitioner, which is under challenge.

6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be maintained if the case is instituted by an Inspector or by the person aggrieved or by a recognized consumer association and not on report by any of the persons, in view of the provision as contained in Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, but here in that instant case, the written report, upon which the case was instituted, has been lodged by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, on which report, charge sheet was submitted and hence, the prosecution can never be maintained under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. So far charges under the Indian Penal Code is concerned, that also cannot be maintained as any offence concerning with ‘adulterated drugs’ is covered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, a special legislation, which will have overriding effect over the general law by virtue the provision, as contained in Section 4 Cr.P.C.

7. Under the situation, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside.

8. Mr. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is not that the case lodged by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum is only with respect to commission of the offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 rather also on account of commission of the offence under Sections 274 and 275 of the Indian Penal Code and in such situation, the prosecution can easily be maintained.

9. I do not find any substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the State.

10. It has not been disputed that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 deal with the drug, which is misbranded, adulterated, or spurious and, therefore, sa