Drugs Inspectors under Section 8 of 1954 Act lack statutory power to file direct complaints; must forward to police for FIR as per Supreme Court directions; existing complaints quashed for procedural irregularity.

ORDER :

Sunder Mohan J.

The above quash petitions are listed before us, pursuant to an Administrative Order passed by Hon’ble Chief Justice, on the reference made by a learned Single Judge of this Court to decide the following question:

“In the absence of any amendment to Section 8 of the Special Act, whether a Drugs Inspector, who is appointed under Section 8 of the Special Act viz., Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, is competent to launch a prosecution, in respect of any drug falling under Ayurvedha, Siddha or Unani, if the said Drugs Inspector, is an Allopathy Drugs Inspector?

or in other words

Whether in respect of violation or contravention of any provisions of the Special Act viz., Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, only the Drug Inspectors of the respective field (Ayurvedha, Siddha, Unani) are competent / eligible to launch the prosecution, in the absence of any amendment to the Special Act.”

2. The learned Single Judge had also requested the Hon’ble Chief Justice to initiate suo motu action as regards the following which also has been referred for our consideration:

“(i) for regulation of “online advertisements” of drugs and medicinal tablets that are specifically banned under the Special Act viz., The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954.

(ii) To create a controlling mechanism for the said purpose, since I find there are no rules or regulations in respect on 'online advertisement and sale', framed in Tamilnadu therefor.”

3. We shall first deal with the question that has been referred for our consideration. The brief facts that are necessary to answer the above question are as follows:

(a) The petitioners are facing prosecution for the offences under Sections 3(c) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, punishable under Section 7(a) of the said Act and Section 3(d) read with the Schedule under Sl.Nos.9 & 12 and 13 & 18 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, punishable under Section 7(a) of the said Act, before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

(b) The petitioners are said to have caused an objectionable advertisement in a magazine by the name of "Health Choice," in respect of a drug, “UTRAVIT – Syrup 200 ml,” claiming that it would cure all types of diseases and disorders of the uterus, and another drug by the name of “GLYCENIL Capsule," claiming that it controls diabetes.

(c) The State had filed the complaints through the Drugs Inspector, appointed and duly notified by the State in its Gazette, G.O. (4D) No. 20, dated 12.07.2013, as an Inspector for the State of Tamil Nadu.

(d) The petitioners filed the captioned quash petitions, which were heard by Hon'ble Mr.Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman (as His Lordship then was). It appears that the petitioners had placed reliance on an order passed by another learned Single Judge, (Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Govindaraj, as His Lordship then was) in W.P.Nos.34099 of 2012 and 45 of 2013, dated 11.04.2022, in support of their submission that a complaint given by the Drugs Inspector was not maintainable.

(e) In W.P.Nos.34099 of 2012 and 45 of 2013, the learned Judge held that an Inspector who is empowered to deal with allopathy drugs is not competent to file a complaint if there is an objectionable advertisement relating to any non-allopathy drugs such as Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, etc.

(f) The Hon'ble Mr.Justice RMT. Teekaa Raman, who heard the above quash petitions, held that any Drugs Inspector, is competent to launch a prosecution irrespective of whether he is a Drugs Inspector acquainted with allopathy drugs or non-allopathy drugs such as Ayurveda, Siddha or Unani under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The learned Judge has referred the above question in view of his differing opinion.

4. Mr.R.John Sathyan, the learned Senior Counsel who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, submit