IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.
Ganesh Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(Cr.) No. 192 of 2020
Decided On : 03-08-2022
Quashing - Criminal Proceeding - Indian Penal Code, Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 - 420, 18(c), 22 (cca), 27 (B) (II), 22 (3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with a case registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 18(c), 22 (cca), 27 (B) (II), and 22 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner,-II, Ranchi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the F.I.R. did not contain any allegation of cheating, and it was established that the intention of cheating was from the very beginning, thus attracting section 420 I.P.C. However, it was also noted that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of a complaint of a Drug Inspector, and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashok Sharma”, the police officer cannot prosecute offenders in regard to such offences and is not entitled to investigate the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority to file a complaint case under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, and the jurisdiction of the criminal court in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashok Sharma” to conclude that the entire criminal proceeding was quashed based on the provisions of Section 32 of the Act and the scheme of the Cr.P.C., which restricts the police officer from prosecuting offenders in such cases and from investigating the matter.
Final Decision: The entire criminal proceeding in connection with the case was quashed based on the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 305/2019, registered under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 18(c), 22 (cca), 27 (B) (II) and 22 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, pending in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner,-II, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been lodged on the basis of complaint of Drug Inspector by the Officer-in-Charge, Ratu Police Station on 17.10.2019. He further submits that in the joint enquiry made by the team of Drug Inspector it was found that medicine was wrongly stored and for that the petitioner has not been able to produce any document. He further submits that in view of provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, only complaint shall be filed by the Drug Inspector who will proceed whereas in the case in hand police inspector has registered the case and investigated the matter. He further submits that this aspect of the matter is settled in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Union of India Vs. Ashok Sharma and Others” (Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2020 (S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4178 of 2019)), wherein para 150 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
I. In regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, in view of Section 32 of the Act and also the scheme of the CrPC, the Police Officer cannot prosecute offenders in regard to such offences. Only the persons mentioned in Section 32 are entitled to do the same.
II. There is no bar to the Police Officer, however, to investigate and prosecute the person where he has committed an offence, as stated under Section 32(3) of the Act, i.e., if he has committed any cognizable offence under any other law.
III. Having regard to the scheme of the CrPC and also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a Police Officer cannot register a FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC, in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of the CrPC.
IV. Having regard to the provisions of Section 22(1)(d) of the Act, we hold that an arrest can be made by the Drugs Inspector in regard to cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act without any warrant and otherwise treating it as a cognizable offence. He is, however, bound by the law as laid down in D.K. Basu (supra) and to follow the provisions of CrPC.
V. It would appear that on the understanding that the Police Officer can register a FIR, there are many cases where FIRs have been registered in regard to cognizable offences falling under Chapter IV of the Act. We find substance in the stand taken by learned Amicus Curiae and direct that they should be made over to the Drugs Inspectors, if not already made over, and it is for the Drugs Inspector to take action on the same in accordance with the law. We must record that we are resorting to our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in this regard.
VI. Further, we would be inclined to believe that in a number of cases on the understanding of the law relating to the power of arrest as, in fact, evidenced by the facts of the present case, police officers would have made arrests in regard to offences under Chapter IV of the Act. Therefore, in regard to the power of arrest, we make it clear that our decision that Police Officers do not have power to arrest in respect of cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, will operate with effect from the date of this Judgment.
VII. We further direct that the Drugs Inspectors, who carry out the arrest, must not only report the arrest
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restriction on police officers from prosecuting offenders and investigating cases under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940, as per the provisions....
Only a Drug Inspector can initiate proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, making any police-initiated proceedings legally invalid.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on police powers to register an FIR for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as specified in Section 32 o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the court's authority to quash the criminal proceeding, including th....
Police cannot register FIR or investigate cognizable offences under Chapter IV of Drugs & Cosmetics Act; authority vests with Drugs Inspectors. Proceedings quashed qua Drugs Act offence but continued....
Police cannot prosecute for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; jurisdiction lies with designated authorities leading to invalid charges filed in sessions court.
The main legal point established is that the police have the authority to investigate offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and that the involvement of offences under other statutes does not den....
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.