Judgment 1. The present Wrft application has been filed for quashing of Sultanganj P.S. Case no. 227 of 2005 dated 17.6.2005 instituted for alleged violation of the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 as also under Sec. 420 and other Section of Indian Penal Code. 2. The State has filed a counter affidavit. Parties have been heard and with their consent it is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that he was manufacturing protein food supplements under licence duly issued by the Food Controller under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. His premises were unauthorisedly and illegally searched by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultanganj police station, which led to the institution of the present case on the allegation that the petitioner was found manufacturing drugs without proper licence and/or authorisation. As the petitioner was manufacturing food articles for which they had licence, it was alleged that provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was also violated. 4. As the petitioner had intended to cheat or mislead the people various provisions of Indian Penal Code were added, thus the police usurped jurisdiction to lodge an FIR and investigate the case. It is the correctness of this action of the police that is in question. 5. Having heard counsel for the par-ties, in my view, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is a complete Code in itself with regard to manufacture, sale of food articles and contravention in respect thereof. It has its own set of authorities, which are authorised to conduct investigation, search, seizure and/or launch prosecution in respect thereof including enquiry into the matter. Same is the provision of Drugs and Cosmetic Act. Both are special statutes making out special offence and providing for its enquiry and prosecution. 6. In that view of the matter, in view of the provision of Sec. 4(2) Cr.P.C. the procedure as prescribed in these special statute will have to be followed in derogation to the procedure, as prescribed under Cr.P.C. Special authorities have been conferred on special officers under the two Acts, which authorities are not on the police officer. The action of the police is wholly without jurisdiction, in all aspect of the matter. The action of the police is wholly without jurisdiction, in all aspect of the matter. Merely by writing Sec. 420 and other Sections of IPC the police cannot make out an offence where there is none, in fact, in terms of those sections and intendment to cheat and intendment to commit criminal breach of trust is not enough to be an offence under IPC and preparation to commit, an attempt to make offence is not punishable under IPC. 7. In the case of Malkiat Singh vs. State of Punjab, since reported in AIR 1970 SC 713 the Apex Court has held that as a matter of law a preparation for committing an offence is different from attempt to commit an offence. 8. Considering all aspect of the matter I find that if what the police alleges is violation of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, then it is only Inspector of Drugs who had the authority to inspect, search seizure or institution of prosecution. If they allege that the provision of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is violated then it was the authority of the Food Inspector alone and not the police officer to inspect, seizure or ceased. So far as the offences alleged under IPC are concerned none is made out on the facts of the case. 9. In this connection I may refer to an earlier judgment of this court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 1997 BLJ 899 , which has been followed in subsequent decision by this Court. 10. In that view of the matter, the present prosecution as initiated on the basis of the FIR aforesaid and all subsequent acts thereunder are held to be wholly without jurisdiction and are quashed. 11. This Writ application is accordingly allowed.