IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53391 of 2007 PREM CHANDRA PRASAD, Son of Hiralal Arya, Resident of Srikrishna Place, Govind Mitra Road, P.S. Pirbahore, District-Patna --------------- Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --------------- Opp.Party ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. -------------- O R D E R This application has been preferred by one of the F.I.R. named accused of Pirbahore P.S. Case no.133 of 2001 for the quashing of the order dated 13.2.2002 passed therein by Sri B.P.Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge as also the order dated 31.5.2007 passed by Sri Brajendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Criminal Revision No.242 of 2002 whereby he has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.2.2002. The aforesaid Pirbahore P.S. case was registered under Sections 420,274,414 I.P.C. as also Sections 27,28 (A) and (B) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act on the basis of a written report submitted by one Ram Chandra Keshri , Regional Officer, Drug Control Administration, Patna , inter alia stating that on receipt of confidential information that a clandestine business in storing and sale of medicines was being carried out from the office of Sri Krishna Transport Agency, Krishna Palace, Govind Mitra Road, a raid was conducted under the leadership of the officer Incharge, Pirbahore - 2 - Police Station. and huge quantity of medicines including some banned sterile water was recovered. Assailing the impugned orders the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire criminal proceeding was ab initio void since prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act can be instituted only by filing of a complaint by the Drugs Inspector and the police had no jurisdiction to register a F.I.R. and investigate the offence under the Act as the same happens to be in violation of the provisions of Section 32 as also Section 22 (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. I am fully in agreement with the submissions advanced as the point is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar reported in 1997 (1) BLJ 899, Manju Kumar Vrs State of Bihar reported in 2006 (2) PLJR 549 and Cr.Misc.No.33277 of 2007 ( Shailendra Sharma Vrs. State of Bihar ) disposed of on 14.11.2008. There is another aspect of the matter. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act being a complete Code in itself with regard to manufacture, sale and contravention thereof, having its own set of authorities for the purpose of search, seizure etc. and launching prosecution. In that view of the matter and having regard to Section 4(2) Cr.P.C. the procedure prescribed in this statute has to be followed in supersession of any other law in force for the time being. Accordingly, incorporating offences under the Penal Code does not give right to the police to register a case or hold investigation which - 3 - would only be possible by following the procedure laid down in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. In view of what has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs the present prosecution initiated on the basis of the written report of the Regional Officer and all subsequent acts and orders passed therein are rendered nugatory and are accordingly quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 16th February,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.