IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5630 of 2010 HARENDRA PATHAK . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . For the Petitioner: Ranjan Kr. Dubey, Adv. For the State : Ramchandra Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 3/ 31/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Siwan Sadar P.S. Case No.1/2010 came to be lodged on 6.1.2010 under Section-27(B)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the drug inspector, Siwan against the petitioner. It alleged that the petitioner was selling scheduled drugs without any licence when valid drugs along with expired drugs were found on the same rack. Questioning the prosecution learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the drug inspector was not competent to lodge the F.I.R. He next submits that no F.I.R. was maintainable and only a complaint case could have been filed. He relies upon 1997 (I) P.L.J.R. 899 (Hindustan Lever Limited Versus State of Bihar & Ors.), 2005(3) P.L.J.R. 662 (Basudeo Gupta Versus State of Bihar & Ors.) and 2006(2) P.L.J.R. 549 (Manju Kumari and Anr. Versus State of Bihar & Ors.). 2 Insofar the cases of Basudeo Gupta and Manju Kumari (supra) are concerned, they are completely distinguishable on facts as in both those cases the F.I.R. was not lodged by the drug inspector, but by the police authorities. Section-3(E)(ii) of the Act provides that an inspector is one appointed under Section-21. Insofar as the present controversy is concerned, Section-22 provides the powers of such inspector when he is fully empowered within the local limits of the area for which he is appointed to inspect any premises where a drug or cosmetic is sold or stock exhibited when he considers or has reason to believe that an offence under Chapter-4 was being committed. The offences of which the petitioner has been charged are under Chapter-4, Section-27(B) of the Act. The drug inspector is fully competent to lodge the F.I.R., this Court finds no infirmity in the institution of the prosecution. Section-32 of the Act provides for institution of prosecution by an inspector and none other except t the extent of a person aggrieved or by a renowned consumer association. No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class can try the offence. The word „prosecution‟ cannot be 3 read down as limited to a complaint case only. The word „prosecution‟ shall take within its ambit both an F.I.R. and/or a complaint, as the case may be, subject to the maintainability of either before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, or the Metropolitan Magistrate. Had the Legislature intended otherwise, it would have clearly provided that no cognizance could be taken except upon a complaint in writing which would then completely exclude the aspect of an institution of an F.I.R. For an analogy this Court may refer to Section- 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 which reads as follows:- “60. Cognizance of offences.--- No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except on a complaint made by--- (a) the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorized in this behalf by that Authority or Government, as the case may be; or (b) any person who has given notice of not less than thirty days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and his intention to make a complaint to the National Authority, the State Authority, the Central Government, the State Government, the District Authority or any other authority or officer authorized.” No F.I.R. for a prosecution under the Disaster Management Act would, therefore, be 4 maintainable. This Court, therefore, finds itself in respectful disagreement with the order of this Court in Hindustan Lever Limited (supra) holding that no F.I.R. was maintainable and only a complaint would be instituted by the drug inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act when there is no such interdict in the statutory provision. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)