Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that Section 27 of the Act deals with penalty for manufacture, sale etc. of drugs in contravention of this chapter. As the vials were not sent to the Government analyst for test and report provisions of Sections 27(a), (b) and (c) are not attracted. As there is no report that the vaccine which was used was either misbranded or, adulterated or spurious no case under Section 27 of the Act can lie against the petitioner Dr. Kundu.

6. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that Rule 49 defines qualification of inspectors. It is a special Act and in a case of such nature police has no power to investigate or to make any enquiry. Only the drug inspector can make necessary search and seizure and investigation and Section 32 of the Act clearly lays down that no prosecution under this chapter shall be instituted except by an inspector or by the person aggrieved or by a recognised consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not and no Court inferior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of first class shall try an offence punishable under this chapter. It clearly lays down that the Court is not competent to take cognizance unless there is report by drug inspector. In the instant case taking of cognizance by the learned SDJM on the basis of final report or chargesheet submitted by police is bad in law and the proceeding has been vitiated. The entire power of search, seizure, investigation and submission of report are vested with the drug inspectors and their powers have been defined in Section 22 of the Act. The allegation of complainant is that over the label of the vial dates of manufacture and expiry of the drug were tampered. There was no investigation regarding that point by the Investigating Officer sending the vials to any expert for opinion whether there was tampering as alleged or not. Dr. Kundu did not violate any provisions of the Act, submission of chargesheet against him under Section 279 of IPC is absolutely bad and illegal as Section 279 of IPC deals with driving or riding on a public way so rashly and negligently as to danger human life. In the instant case the allegation was that the doctor pushed expired vaccine into the body of minor son of complainant. Submission of chargesheet under Section 279 of IPC was, therefore, absolutely bad in law and taking cognizance by the learned SDJM over such chargesheet shows total non-application of mind by the learned SDJM. Therefore, taking of cognizance was bad in law and the alleged offence in respect of which chargesheet has been submitted does not lie at all against the petitioner Dr. Kundu and accordingly by continuation of criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of Court and it should be quashed.

19. In West Bengal it has been amended by W. B. Act No. 42 of 1973, Section 3(iv) (w.e.f. 29.4.1973) and the words "of either description for a term which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both", has been substituted by the words "for life with or without fine :

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment which is less than imprisonment for life."

20. It is evident from the chargesheet submitted by the Investigating Officer that he has submitted chargesheet under Section 279 of IPC read with Section 27 of the Act. Section 279 of IPC runs as follows :

"Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."

21. The definitions of abovequotedars of IPC, i.e. 274, 275 and 279 of IPC make it clear that Section 279 of IPC has no connection at all with the ingredients of offence under Sections 274 and 275 of IPC. Elements of Section 279 of IPC are driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way and such driving or riding is in a manner which is so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. Section 274 of IPC deals with adulteration of drug and Section 275 of IPC deals with sale of adulterated drugs. Sections 274 and 275 do not contain any ingredient or element relating to driving of a vehicle or riding on a public way rashly and negligently to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. The conclusion of the Investigating Officer in the chargesheet does not show as to how he came to the conclusion that elements of Section 279 of IPC transpired in this case when the FIR was started under Sections 274 and 275 of IPC. It shows total non-application of mind on the part of the Investigating Officer and his failure to grasp the serious nature of the case. Had the Investigating Officer applied mind and intelligence into nature of the case and materials collected during investigation he would have found that offence of other sections transpired and there was no element of Section 279 of IPC to file chargesheet under that section of IPC.

25. On the basis of FIR case under Sections 274 and 275 of IPC read with Section 27 of the Act was started against both the accused petitioners, but there was no element of Section 279 of IPC against them in the instant matter. It is clear, therefore, the Investigating Officer has caused mischief in this case and has almost single handedly destroyed the prosecution case. It is a fit case in which necessary action should be taken against the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and submitted chargesheet. Submission of chargesheet under Section 279 of IPC was bad in law and taking of cognizance under Section 279 of IPC by the learned Magistrate was also bad in law. Submission of chargesheet in this case under Section 279 of Cr. PC is hereby set aside.