The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering the law and facts of the case before taking cognizance of an alleged offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

ORDER

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The petitioners in the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seek to challenge the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Balangir in 2(c)CC No. 1 of 2016, whereby cognizance of the offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') was taken and summons was issued.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Drug Inspector, Bolangir Range, Bolangir conducted a raid on the petitioners' pharmaceutical firm on 24.02.2016 and during such raid, it was found that the petitioners had manufactured two drugs without prior approval of the licencing authority. The stock of the said drugs was seized after observing the formalities and on the prima facie allegation that the accused persons had violated Section 18(a)(vi) of the Act read with Condition-3 of Order No. 04. Manufacturing Licenses in Form-25 granted under Rule 71 of the Drugs Rules, 1945, the prosecution report was submitted on 25.02.2016 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. Long after i.e., on 18.10.2019 the Drug Inspector submitted sanctioned P.R. on the basis of which learned S.D.J.M. vide order dated 19.10.2019, took cognizance of the offence under Section-27 (d) of the Act, which is impugned in the present application.

4. Heard Mr. T. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Nanda that the order of cognizance is bad in law since the same is barred by limitation. Referring to the provision under Section 27(d) of the Act, it is submitted by Mr. Nanda that the offence being punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year which may be extended to two years, the period of limitation for taking cognizance as per Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C. is three years. It is further submitted that there is no explanation for the delay in submitting the sanctioned PR and therefore, the learned S.D.J.M., committed manifest error in mechanically accepting such report and taking cognizance of the alleged offences.

6. Mr. P. Tripathy, on the other hand, referring to the provisions of Section 470 of Cr.P.C. submits that Sub-Section (3) thereof saves the limitation since the period was spent in obtaining sanction and therefore, no illegality whatsoever has been committed by learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir.

7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is apt to refer to the relevant provision of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Section 27(d) of the Act reads as under:

27. Penalty for manufacture, sale, etc., of drugs in contravention of this Chapter.-Whoever, himself or by any other person on his behalf, manufactures for sale or for distribution, or sells, or stocks or exhibits or offers for sale or distributes,-

xx xx xx

(d) any drug, other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two years and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees:

Provided that the Court may for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year.

Further, Section 36-AD of the Act reads as under:

36-AD. Application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before Special Court.-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)(including the provisions as to bails or bonds), shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting the prosecution before the Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor:

Provided that the Central Government or the State Government may also appoint