IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.630 of 2008 1. SUBODH KUMAR son of Sri Ramawatar Ram 2. Lakkshman Prasad Singh son of late Natho Mahto both resident of village Nadsena, P.S. (Sitamarhi) Narhat, Dist. Nawada. …….petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum-Secretary, Deptt. of Health, Govt. of Bihar. , Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 2. Bholla Prasad, Drug Inspector ( Nawada) son of late Banarshi Prasad Sao, P.O. and district Nawada ……Respondents. ----------- 4 27.4.2009 A first information report was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of the Drug Inspector as P.S. case No. 74/08 of Narhat Police Station under Section 18©, 18(a), (vi), 27 (b)(ii) and 27 (d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the Act, in short). The main contention of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 within the purview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is illegal and when an authority is authorized under the - 2 - 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 petitioners vide Narhat P.S. case No. 74 of 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) Rahman/