For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. .....

By the Court:-

cum - Special Judge, Drugs & Cosmetics Act Cases; in concerned orders sheet wherein the order regarding framing of charge has been mentioned.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case 3 Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021 of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. , reported in (2021) 12 SCC 674, para -170.3 of which reads as under:-

Submits that it is a settled principle of law that having regard to the scheme of Cr.P.C . and also the mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available with the Drugs Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a police officer cannot register an F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. with regard to cognizable offences under Chapter-IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of Cr.P.C .

5. It is next submitted that as in this case, police registered the F.I.R. and investigated the offences punishable under 18(c) and 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 , so neither the F.I.R. nor the consequent action of investigation, submission of charge sheet, cognizance order, order of framing of charge, so far as it relates to the offences punishable under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act , the same is liable to be quashed being not maintainable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that so far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is concerned, which reads as under:-

goes to show that there are three different kinds of offences for which penalty has been provided for in Section 3 , first one under Section 3(1) of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 relates to a person disobeying any regulation or order made under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 . It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of disobeying any regulation or order made under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 . It is then submitted that Section 3(2) (i) & (ii) of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is regarding the offence of commission of Act of violence against the Health Care Service Personnel or abates or causes damage or loss to any property. It is further submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of causing any loss to any property nor there is any allegation of violence against the Health Care Service Personnel. It is next submitted that Section 3(3) of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 relates to an aggravated form of offence punishable under Section 3(2) of the said Act when by violence 5 Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021 against a Health Care Service Personnel, grievous hurt is also caused to such victim and it is submitted that none of such allegation is made against the petitioner in the F.I.R., charge sheet or anywhere in the case diary, hence, even if the allegation made against the petitioner is considered to be true, still the offence punishable under Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is not made out.

7. So far as the offence punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is concerned, firstly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of refusing to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Government or National Executive Committee or State Executive Committee of the District Authority under the Act and secondly in view of Section 60 of the said Act which reads as under:-

Submits that cognizance of the said offence can only be taken on a complaint made by the authority/person mentioned therein but in this case, as no complaint has been filed directly with the court concerned rather an F.I.R. has been lodged. So, on both counts, i.e. 6 Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021 as no offence is made out under Section 51(b) and the cognizance having been taken on the police report is bad in law. It is then submitted that the offence punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is also liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

8. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand fairly submits that the police has committed an error in registering the F.I.R. in a case involving the penal provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 as well as the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 but opposes the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding.

9. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has categorically been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. (supra), the law is well settled that a police officer cannot register an F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. regard to cognizable offences under Chapter-IV of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of Cr.P.C but in this case in-disputedly, the Officer-in-Charge of Burma Mines Police Station has just done that, hence this Court has no hesitation in holding that the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed so far as the offence punishable under Section 18(c) and 27(b)(ii) off the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is concerned.

10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is concerned, in view of Section 60 7 Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021 of the said Act, certainly the court ought not have taken cognizance except on a complaint made by the authority/officer concerned, who has been authorized under Section 60 of the said Act, as already indicated above in the foregoing paragraphs of the Judgment, to make such complaint. Otherwise also, in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner refused to comply with any direction given by or on behalf of the Government or Executive Committee or Disaster Authority under the Act, even if the allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is not made out.

11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner to constitute any of the offences for which penalty has been provided for in Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; as there is no allegation against the petitioner of disobeying any regulation or order made under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 nor there is any allegation of any violation having committed against a Health Care Service Personnel or damage or loss to any property having been caused. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegation made in the F.I.R, the materials collected during the investigation as mentioned in the case diary and the charge sheet are considered to be true in their entirety, still the offence 8 Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021 punishable under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is not made out.

12. In view of the discussions made above, since the cognizance is bad, so far as the offences punishable under Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and Section 18(c) & 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 for the F.I.R. having been registered in respect of the said offences instead of complaint being filed to the Magistrate concerned and as the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is not made out even if the allegations are considered to be true, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Burma Mines P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, including the order taking cognizance dated 17.07.2021, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, the order dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner and the order of framing charge dated 23.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur in connection with the said Burma Mines P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021 be quashed and set aside.

13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Burma Mines P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, including the order taking cognizance dated 17.07.2021, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur the order dated 26.09.2023, 9 Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur rejecting the discharge petition of the petitioner and the order of framing charge dated 23.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jamshedpur in connection with the said Burma Mines P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021 are quashed and set aside.

14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 13th May, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

10 Cr.M.P. No.2541 of 2021