Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This revision petition is filed against an order in S.T.C. No. 2 of 1986.

2. The facts of the case are that the Drug Inspector, Warangal, filed a complaint alleging that the accused who is the proprietor of M/s Sudha Medical Stores, sold 30 tablets of Ibugesic 400 mg. for Rs. 44-50 paise and collected excess of Rs. 9-64 paise under bill No. 1465, dated 23-6-1985 and thereby contravened Clause 21 read with Clause 29 of the Drugs Price Control Order, 1979, punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It was contended by the accused that under Section 12AA(1)(e) of the Essential Commodities Act as amended by Act, 18 of 1981, the complaint must be filed by the police only and only then the Court can take cognizance. The amended Act came into force and so Section 11 of the E.C. Act has no application. Therefore on the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector who is a public servant, cognizance cannot be taken. The Lower Court has thoroughly considered that and held that the complaint must be filed only as per Section 12-AA(1)(e) of the Act. In this case as the complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector under Section 11 of the E.C. Act the court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance. That order is challenged in this revision by the State. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that by introducing the amended Act the Legislature wanted that the cases should be tried speedily by the Special Court. That does not mean that the power conferred under Section 11 has been taken away. Both Section 11 and Section 12AA(1)(e) must be read harmoniously and the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector is maintainable and that the Court has to take cognizance if the Court is satisfied that a case is made out in the complaint. The learned Public Prosecutor also relied on a decision in Vithal v. Asst. Director of Agriculture (1987) 1 Andh LT 348.