Cognizance Of Offence Under Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 Can't Be Taken Based On Police Officer's Complaint: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that cognizance cannot be taken of an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 based on a complaint filed by a police officer.Reversing the decision of the High Court which had refused to quash the proceedings against the accused, the Bench Comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the...
The Supreme Court held that cognizance cannot be taken of an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 based on a complaint filed by a police officer.
Reversing the decision of the High Court which had refused to quash the proceedings against the accused, the Bench Comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the proceedings can be competently initiated only based on a complaint by a Drug Inspector and not the police officer.
“Having noted the above, it is apparent that the proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 initiated against the appellant on the basis of the complaint of the Police Inspector is legally invalid.”, the court said.
The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court came while dealing with the plea of the accused/appellant against the decision of the High Court whereby the High Court had refused to quash the criminal case registered against the accused under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act based on the complaint of the police officer.
Before the Supreme Court, the Appellant/accused contended that Section 32 (1)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (“Act”) doesn't empower the police officer to register an FIR against the offence(s) arising out of the Act.
Finding force in the submissions made by the accused/appellant, the Supreme Court held that the proceedings initiated against the accused were unjustified as the police is not empowered to register a FIR against the appellant.
To this effect, the court referred to its judgment of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors., where the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“Having regard to the scheme of CrPC and also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a police officer cannot register an FIR under Section 154 CrPC, in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of CrPC.”
Thus, terming the entire proceeding initiated against the appellant as invalid, the court quashed the proceedings initiated against the appellant.
The Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, AOR Mrs. Manju Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. Mr. Aditya Durgvanshi, Adv. Mr. Saumitra Singh, Adv.
Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Jhamba, Adv.
Case Title: RAKESH KUMAR VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 264