IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47332 of 2007 DINESH PRASAD S/O RAMCHANDRA SHAW --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SHEIKHPURA 3. THE CIVIL SURGEON SHEIKHPURA. -- OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 05 27.08.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.12.2002 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura whereby cognizance under Sections 18( c), 27 and 27(A) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 ( herein after referred to as the „Act‟) has been taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present prosecution was ignited at the instance of the Medical Officer in-charge wherein an allegation has been made that the petitioner and few others were running a pharmacy shops without valid license. It is contended that in terms of the scheme of the Act such prosecution can be lodged only by the Drug Inspector or the Authorities under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It is thus submitted that the entire prosecution including the order taking cognizance stands vitiated in law. He relies on a notification of the Government dated 16 th July, 1994 (Annexure-2). Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand submits that Section 32 of the Act empowers several persons/Authorities to initiate prosecution. It is contended that any gazetted officer of the Central Government or of the State Government or the person aggrieved or a recognized consumer association can lodged such F.I.R.. With regard to the notification contained in Annexure-2, it has been submitted that by the said notification the State Government only withdrew the jurisdiction and power of the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer to issue Drug license. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. Section 32 of the Act reads as under:- “32, Cognizance of offences-(1) No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by an Inspector [or by the person aggrieved or by a recognized consumer association whether such person is a member of that association or not]. (2) No Court inferior to that of [a Metropolitan Magistrate or of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class] shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter. (3) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this Chapter.” A bare perusal of the Section would show that the informant who was functioning as the In charge Medical officer of the Hospital (a gazetted officer) was authorized to lodge the F.I.R. The submission of the petitioner that by virtue of notification contained in annexurte-2, the prosecution was necessarily to be launched by the Drug inspector, in my view, appears to be misconceived. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)