High Court of Jammu and Kashmir

Ban Labs Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Drugs Inspector and Ors.

MANU/JK/0711/2018

07.09.2018

Criminal

Only Inspector appointed by Central Government or State Government by notification in official Gazette is competent to launch prosecution

In present matter, the case of the Petitioners is that, Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company having its registered office. The Petitioner No. 2 claims to be the Chairman of the said Company. It is stated that, Petitioner No. 1-Company has been granted license, to manufacture for sale of the Ayurvedic drugs; that the said license has been last renewed under Rule 155 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

The Petitioners states that, Respondent has filed a criminal complaint under Sections 18(a), 18(b) and 18(c) read with Sections 27(b) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the petitioners and one Bharat Bhushan Mantoo (accused No. 1 in the complaint). Petitioners have stated that Respondent No. 1 while conducting the action, has not complied the provision of Chapter IVA of Drug and Cosmetic Act, which is applicable to Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs; that, Drug Inspector who filed the complaint was not competent, because he was not Inspector appointed as per chapter IVA of the Act.

Appointment of inspectors for launching prosecution under chapter IV and IVA of Act are quite different. For launching prosecution in chapter IV inspectors are appointed under section 21 of Act, whereas for launching prosecution under chapter IVA of Act, the inspector are appointed under section 33G of Act. Section 33G deals with appointment of the Inspectors which says that the Central Government or a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having certain prescribed qualifications and it has laid down their duties, functions who could launch prosecution for breach of any of the provisions relating to Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drugs.

The Provisions of Chapter IVA of Act deals with special branch of medicines like, Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs and it contains complete procedure and authority who would be competent to launch prosecution. As already stated under Section 33G(4) of the Act, it is only inspector who is appointed by Central Government or State Government by notification in official Gazette is competent to launch prosecution. The Inspector appointed under Section 21 of Act, occurring under Chapter IV of the Act is, thus, not competent to launch prosecutions for breach of violation of any provision of chapter IVA of Act.

Admittedly, in the present case, Respondent No. 1 has not been appointed in terms of Section 33G, but he has been appointed in terms of Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, as per law, he was not competent to prosecute the petitioners for the offences under Chapter IV-A which deals with Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani Drugs. The only Inspector appointed by the Central Government or State Government under Section 33-G of Act, was authorized to launch prosecution for the alleged offences, if any, committed under Chapter IV-A of the Act. Therefore, entire prosecution launched by inspector appointed under Section 21 of Act for violation of provision of provisions of Chapter IVA of Act is without jurisdiction. The impugned proceedings initiated against the Petitioners are herby quashed.

Tags : Proceeding Inspector Competency

Share :