The validity of the FIR and entitlement to stock and sell medicines under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 111 dated 08.10.2009 registered at Police Station, Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda under Section 420 of IPC and Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Annexure P2) and all other consequential proceedings arising out of the same.

2. Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was the sole proprietor of M/s Garg Medical Hall, Village Jodhpur Pakhar, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda and was running a Chemist shop. The petitioner was having a valid license issued by a competent authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1945 and the Rules framed thereunder. Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, two licenses were issued to the petitioner i.e. Form No. 20 and the other under Form No. 21. Form No.20 relates to the license to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by retail any drugs other than those specified in Schedule C and C (I) and X and Form No. 21 relates to the license to sell, stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale, or distribute by retail, drugs specified in Scheduled C and C (I) excluding those specified in Schedule X to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. It is pertinent to mention here that the above mentioned licenses were issued to the petitioner firm on 20.04.2000 and thereafter the same were renewed from time to time by the competent authority. On the basis of a secret information, the said FIR was registered against the present petitioner.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the version of the FIR, no offence under Section 420 is made out against the petitioner, particularly, when the petitioner is having a valid drug licence so as to entitle him to stock, offer or sale the drugs/medicines mentioned in various schedules of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 except those mentioned in Schedule X of the said Rules.

4. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present FIR cannot be sustained for an offence under Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as the Magistrate cannot take cognizance on the basis of police report for an offence under Section 15 of the Act.

5. Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 reads as under:-

“15. Right of persons possessing qualifications in the Schedules to be enrolled

1) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, the medical qualifications included in the Schedules shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Medical Register.

2) Save as provided in Section 25, no person other than a medical practitioner enrolled on a State Medical Register-

a) shall hold office as physician or surgeon or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority;

b) shall practise medicine in any State;

c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner;

d) shall be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) on any matter relating to medicine.

3) Any person who acts in contravention of any provisions of Sub section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

And further submitted that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules framed there under i.e. Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 are complete, in itself, and sufficient to deal with any of the offences with respect to distribution, sale, purchase or exhibit for sale or offer, manufacturing etc. of drugs and cosmetics. Further, under the said Act and rules framed thereunder, only the Drug Inspector, besides the person aggrieved or a registered consumer association is compe