H.C. Mishra, J.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. No. 159 of 2013, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Though in the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge held that prima-facie no offence was made out against the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but it has been held that there were sufficient materials against the petitioner for framing the charge under section 28-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred this revision application in this Court.

3. The facts of this case lie in a short compass. A written information was given by one Santosh Kumar Das to the Officer-in-Charge of Sector-IV Police Station, Bokaro Steel City, informing that he had taken one unit of blood after giving his own blood, from the blood bank situated at Sector-IV, Plot No. G.C.-18, City Centre, Bokaro. The blood was required by him for the treatment of his mother. Subsequently, the informant learnt that the said blood bank was being run without any license, and accordingly, he gave the written information before the police, on the basis of which Sector-IV, P.S. Case No. 143 of 2012 was instituted for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 28-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner, being the owner of the said blood bank, and the cognizance of the offence was taken accordingly. The petitioner filed his application for discharge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected as aforementioned.

4. The main ground taken by the petitioner in this revision application is that ‘blood’ does not come within the preview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, in course of arguments this ground was given up by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even otherwise, the ‘Schedule–F’ in ‘Part XII-B’ of the Rules lays down the “Requirements for the functioning and operation of a blood bank and/or for preparation of blood components” under the provisions of Rule 78 of the said Rules. In Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1996) 1 SCC 753, it has been pointed out by the Apex Court as follows:-

“3. For the purpose of regulating its collection, storage and supply, blood is treated as a ‘drug’ under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) made under the Act, provisions regarding equipment and supplies required for a blood bank were contained in Part XII-B, which was inserted vide notification dated 24-6-1967. --------------------- .”

5. Having given up the said ground, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution launched against the petitioner under section 28-B of the Act is absolutely illegal and the same cannot be sustained, in view of Section 32 of the Act, as no prosecution could be launched under the Act on the basis of a police report. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution could be launched under this Section only on the basis of a complaint filed in the competent Court, by the persons authorised under this section, and the police had no jurisdiction to register the F.I.R., or to investigate into the offence under the said Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Patna High Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1997) 1 BLJ 899, wherein it has been laid down as follows:-

“8. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the offence co