Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1360 (PNJ)

Chandhan Singh v. State of Haryana

2003-09-25

NIRMAL SINGH

body2003
JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This is a petition under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 54 dated 2.3.2003 under Sections 17/17A/17B/18/27 of the Drugs of Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") registered at P.S. Chandhat, District Faridabad. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.2.2003 Dr. S.D. Bagga, District Medical Officer, Sh. R.K. Chugh, Senior Drug Inspector visited the Chaudhary Clinic, Amarpur Road, Alwalpur, Tehsil Palwal, Faridabad and made enquiry. Satish Chand son of Balbir Singh was present there at that time. Chandan Singh son of Firdwar was not found there. The inspecting team found 26 types of drugs on the spot. Satish Chand could not produce any bill regarding the purchase of those drugs/medicines. The raid was conducted in the presence of Parkash and Kishan Singh, Panches of village Alwalpur. Their statements were also recorded. It is further case of the prosecution that petitioner has supplied an injection to Sahun son of the complainant Ruddar and on the administration of that injection, grievous injury was developed on the thumb of Sahun due to which this thumb has to be amputated. 3. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner has filed bail application before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was dismissed. 4. Mr. D.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has declined pre-arrest bail to the petitioner without appreciating the fact that offence under the Act is non-cognizable and no FIR can be registered against the person under this Act and only a complaint can be filed before the Magistrate. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on Rajeev Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR(Crl.) 846. He further submitted that under Sections 17/17-A/17-B of the Act, no case is made out against the petitioner as these sections pertain to manufacture, sale and purchase of misbranded, adulterated and spurious drugs. He contended that neither any mis-branded nor adulterated or spurious drugs have been recovered from the place of recovery. He further submitted that the Drug Inspector issued show-cause notice to the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act and the reply was to be filed within ten days. He pointed out that without waiting for the reply of the petitioner within the specified period, present FIR has been registered. 5. Mr. He further submitted that the Drug Inspector issued show-cause notice to the petitioner under Section 18 of the Act and the reply was to be filed within ten days. He pointed out that without waiting for the reply of the petitioner within the specified period, present FIR has been registered. 5. Mr. K.S. Chauhan, learned DAG Haryana submitted that offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code has been added now and therefore, the police has taken the cognizance of the offence. He further submitted that petitioner has sold one injection to Sahun son of complainant Ruddar and the injection was administered to Sahun which developed grievous injury and the thumb of Sahun has to be amputated. He submitted that petitioner is dealing in the trade of spurious drugs, therefore, his custodial interrogation is necessary to elucidate the true facts. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The FIR has been registered under Sections 7/17A/17B/18/27 of the Act. Section 18 of the Act provides that in contravention of provisions of the Act, the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector lies with the Magistrate and no FIR is to be registered as it has been held in Rajeev Kumars case (supra). 7. At the hearing, when it was pointed out to the learned DAG that how offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code has been made out, he was unable to give any satisfactory reply. Moreover, when FIR was registered, offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code was not added. 8. Petitioner has already joined investigation and is no more required for custodial interrogation. So without commenting on the merits of the case it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. He will join the investigation as and when required by the I.O. and will not tamper with the evidence. He will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. Petition allowed.