IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 05.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.RC.No.657 of 2024 and Crl.MP.No.6170 of 2024 D.Mohanraj ...Petitioner Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By, Drugs Inspector, Tiruppur Range, Office of Assistant Director of Drugs Control, No.219, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 18. ...Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 18.04.2023 made in PRC.No.37 of

2022 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tiruppur.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudhakar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, GA (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal revision petition has been filed to set aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tiruppur dated 18.04.2023 made in PRC.No.37 of 2022.

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9010 of 2023 dated 11.01.2024, wherein similar issue has been considered and orders/ clarifications have been passed and, therefore, submits that the benefit of the said order may be given to the petitioner as well.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the relief sought for is squarely covered by the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.9010 of 2023 and, therefore, similar order may be passed.

4. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.9010 of 2023 dated 11.01.2024 relied upon the learned counsel for the petitioners is extracted hereunder:-

"3. The Court below had taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent for offences under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, the Act). After having taken cognizance, the Court below took note of Section 32 of the Act and came to the conclusion that the offences are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions in view of Section 32(2) of the Act and hence, decided to commit the case before the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved by that, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. In the instant case, the petitioner is facing charges for an offence under Section 27(d) of the Act, which is punishable with a maximum imprisonment of two years and with fine. This offence comes within the scope of Section 36A of the Act. However, the Court below came to the conclusion that by virtue of Section 32 of the Act, the case should be tried only by the Court of Sessions.

5. Such a finding rendered by the Court below is not sustainable in view of the clarifications issued in the recent judgment rendered by me in Crl.O.P.No.13125 of 2022 dated

04.1.2024 wherein the relevant portions read thus :

"3. Chapter IV of the Act covers the provisions which provides for the Courts which can take cognizance of the offence and deal with the case. Section 32 of the Act deals with cognizance of offences and Section 32(2) of the Act is extracted hereunder:

32.Cognizance of offences.

..

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session try an offence punishable under this Chapter.

4. It is clear from the above provision that no Court inferior to that of a Court of Session can try any offence punishable under Chapter IV, save as otherwise provided in the Act. This would mean that if there is any other provision under the Act which enables some other Court to try the offence, Section

32(2) of the Act will have to yield to that provision.

5. The other provisions which have to be taken into consideration are Sections 36A and 36AB. Section 36A deals with certain offences which can be tried summarily. This provision was brought in through an amendment made by Act 68 of 1982 which came into effect from 01.02.1983. The provision itself start with a non-obstante clause and its states that the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under