IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1066 of 2008 PHANINDRA PRASAD son of Late Sri Kamdev Prasad, Proprietor of M/S. Satyam Medical Hall, resident of Purani Bajar, P.S. Jhajha District Jamui Versus STATE OF BIHAR through Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 4 18/04/2009 A first information report was registered against the petitioner on 26.6.2008 on the complaint of the Drug Inspector bearing Jhajha P.S. Case no. 105 of 2008 under sections 27b(ii), 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (shortly the Act). The petitioner runs a medical shop in the name and style of M/S. Satyam Medical Hall at Jhajha. He obtained license from the Drugs Department bearing Drug License No. 198 of 1993 and 198-A of 1993 dated 8.1.1993 respectively and the same has been renewed till 31.12.2012. The main contention of the petitioner is that the police has got no power and jurisdiction to register a first information report and investigate into the offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 rather as per the provisions of section 32 of the Act, the prosecution can only be instituted by filing complaint before the Court by the Drug Inspector himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Prasad and others Vs. State of Bihar & another reported in 2009(1) PLJR, 660 wherein relying on the decision of Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 1997(1) B.L.J., 889, it was held that the F.I.R. instituted by the police with respect to the case which falls - 2 - within the purview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is illegal and when an authority is authorized under the Special Act to file a complaint, then the police has no jurisdiction to register a first information report and investigate into the offence under the Act. It has also been held that the specific provision provided under the Special Act would override the general provisions provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the State submits that even though there is technical violation, an offender should not go unpunished and, therefore, the Court should not interfere in the matter. The proper course would be to treat the F.I.R. as a complaint petition. Since the F.I.R. itself is vitiated, I quash the first information report lodged against the petitioner vide Jhajha P.S. Case No. 105/2008 without prejudice to the rights of the proper authority to file complaint before the appropriate court in accordance with law. This writ application is, thus, allowed with the observation aforesaid. (J. B. Koshy, CJ.) AMIN