Surendra Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

Criminal Misc.

not M- 4627 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc.

not M- 4627 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:

26. 4.2013 Surendra ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Saurabh Dalal Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana **** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.570 dated 24.9.2008 under Sections 18A, 18C and 2 (cc) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act for short) and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Jhajjar District Jhajjar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for an offence under the Act, the Drugs Inspector can file a complaint but FIR could not have been registered.

In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on Rajeev Kumar versus State of Punjab 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 846, wherein, it was held as under:- “For the reasons given above, none of the drugs alleged to have been seized from the possession of the petitioner Criminal Misc.

not M- 4627 of 2011 (O&M) 2 falls within the mischief of "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance" as defined in the Act.

They are "drugs or medicines" as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

If at all there is contravention by the petitioner that may be of the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for which complaint lies by the Drugs Inspector to the Court and not FIR and not prosecution by the police.

So, this Criminal Misc.

Petition is allowed and FIR No.59 dated 18-7-1996 of Police Station, Sirhind under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and consequential proceedings having arisen therefrom, are quashed.”

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

Section 32 of the Act reads as under:- Cognizance of offence.

—(1) No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by- (a) an Inspector ;or (b) any gazetted officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government; or (c) the person aggrieved; or (d) a recognised consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not.

Criminal Misc.

not M- 4627 of 2011 (O&M) 3 (2)Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter.

(3) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this Chapter.”

Thus, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed as Drugs Inspector could have filed a complaint before the competent authority and FIR could not have been registered by the police with regard to commission of offence punishable under the Act.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

FIR No.570 dated 24.9.2008 under Sections 18A, 18C, 2 (cc) of the Act and Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station Jhajjar District Jhajjar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.

However, the Drug Inspector would be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Act, if there is any violation of any provision of the said Act.

(SABINA) JUDGE April 26, 2013 anita