01Facts
The Union of India, through a Drugs Inspector, instituted a prosecution alleging offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, arising from the sale of “Dilcardia 30.”
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3The complaint followed sampling and analysis of the drug and was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3After an earlier challenge to cognizance was dismissed by the High Court and the Supreme Court declined to interfere, the petitioners applied to the Trial Court under Section 258 CrPC to stop the proceedings.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 3–5The Trial Court dismissed the application because the case had been instituted on complaint; the Revisional Court dismissed the revision as not maintainable.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 3–5The petitioners sought relief under Section 482 CrPC against both orders.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 3–502Issues
i.1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Section 258 CrPC, and whether the Revisional Court erred in dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable
p. 11 · ¶ 10ii.2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the Trial Court’s and Revisional Court’s orders
pp. 15–16 · ¶ 1403Law Applied
Section 258 CrPC permits a Magistrate, in a summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, to stop proceedings for recorded reasons; depending on whether the principal witness’s evidence has been recorded, the accused may be acquitted or discharged.
p. 11 · ¶ 11Under Section 190(1) CrPC, cognizance may be taken upon a complaint, a police report, or other information or the Magistrate’s own knowledge; a complaint under Section 200 is distinct from a police report.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 12Section 32(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act provides for prosecution to be instituted by an Inspector, but does not, by itself, make the Inspector’s complaint a police report or alter the procedural basis on which cognizance was taken.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 12Section 482 CrPC does not warrant interference where the challenged orders disclose no error calling for the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
p. 16 · ¶ 14Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 190Section 200Section 258Section 313Section 397Section 482
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Section 17Section 18Section 22Section 27Section 32
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138Section 142
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 115
04Reasoning
The Court found that the prosecution had been initiated by a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC, not on a police report.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 12The fact that Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act authorises an Inspector to institute the prosecution did not convert the complaint into a police report; accordingly, the case did not fall within the class of summons-cases to which Section 258 applies.
pp. 12–13 · ¶ 12The Court also noted that the cognizance order had previously been challenged and that the petitioners had been left to contest the matter before the Trial Court; it therefore declined to reopen that challenge through the present Section 482 petition.
pp. 14–15 · ¶ 13The Revisional Court had separately addressed maintainability and the position of the deceased accused, but the decisive ground for the High Court was that Section 258 was unavailable in a complaint case.
pp. 15–16 · ¶ 1405Holding
The Court held that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing the Section 258 application and found no basis to interfere with the Revisional Court’s order under Section 482 CrPC.
pp. 15–16 · ¶ 14–15The criminal petition was dismissed.
p. 17 · ¶ 15Original Court PDF
M/S J B CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTDvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
