IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.918 of 2009 SUNIL KUMAR, son of bishwanath Prasad resident of Mohalla- Langartoli, P.S.- Kadamkuan, Town & District- Patna. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Drug Controller, Bihar, Patna. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 05.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 21.05.2009 under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code of Patrakar Nagar P.S. case no. 33 of 2009 ( G.R. No. 905 of 2009). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police has no jurisdiction to institute a case under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He further submits that the police has neither jurisdiction to investigate the same nor file charge-sheet. He further submits that in the instant case, the police not only instituted F.I.R. but submitted charge sheet as well. He further submits that Section 22 read with Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act bar institution of case by police, as such he submits that the order taking cognizance on the basis of such investigation and charge sheet is also bad in law. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon decisions in case of Satish Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007(2) PLJR 724 and in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1997(1) BLJ 899. It has been authoritatively pronounced in case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (Supra) that provisions in special Act over ride the general provisions of Cr.P.C. As per section 22 of the Act power of 2 search and seizure is vested in Inspector of Drugs, who has been authorized to inspect, search or seize and institute prosecution for alleged violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Drugs Act does not confer power on police official either to make search or seizure or to institute a case. In view of settled positions, order of cognizance on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the police would be in violation of Section 22 read with section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. However, the quashing of the cognizance would not come in the way of the authorities concerned in filing regular complaint in accordance with law. In the result, the impugned order, taking cognizance dated 21.05.2009 in Patrakar Nagar P.S. case no. 33 of 2009 (G.R. No. 905 of 2009) is set aside. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)