Karnataka High Court
Sri. Murali vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9381 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Sri. Murali,
Son of Late Bheema Jetti,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.2,
17th Ward, Chettigara Road,
Kote, Chikkaballapura Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District,
PIN CODE 562 101.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri Nanjunda Gowda M.R., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by
Chikkaballapura Town Police,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2
2. Sri. Bhakthavatsalam,
District Health Officer,
Chikkaballapura Town and
District - 562 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri B.Visweswaraiah, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1/State)
*****
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in S.C.No.155/2013 on the file of the Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petition is considered for final disposal at the stage of admission, having regard to a glaring irregularity. It is pointed out that the second respondent had lodged a complaint before the police alleging an offence punishable under Section 18-C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 15(3) 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 as well as under
Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After further investigation, the police have filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and a case is now registered against the petitioner in C.C.No.445/2012. The court has taken cognizance of the offences aforesaid and the matter has been committed to the Sessions Court, which is now registered as S.C.No.155/2013 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura and it is this which is under challenge in the present petition.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel would point out that the patent irregularity from which the present proceedings suffer is that Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been over-looked. He would submit that no prosecution shall be instituted under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, except by an Inspector or by a person aggrieved or by a 4 recognized consumer association, whether such person is a member of such association or not.
4. In the present case on hand, the complaint is filed by the District Health Officer who is not authorized under the said provision. Therefore, he would point out that the 'Inspector' contemplated has been defined under Section 3(e) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the District Health Officer cannot be construed as an 'Inspector' defined under Section 3(e) for purposes of Section 32 and therefore, the court could not have taken cognizance of the offences alleged. To compound the situation, the police officer has filed the final report which also has been entertained by the court below without reference to the mandatory provision under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Therefore, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.155/2013 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, are quashed. Liberty is 5 however granted to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law, if the law permits.
I.A.1/2016 is disposed of as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS