Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2387 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2006-05-31

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2006
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Raj Kumar has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code) for quashing of FIR No. 196 dated 23.7.2005, under Section 188 IPC, registered at Police Station City Phagwara. 2. The above said FIR was registered against the petitioner at the instance of ASI Karamjit Singh on the allegation that the petitioner was selling intoxicating tablets and capsules without prescription from qualified doctor to the young men in violation of an order issued by the District Magistrate, Kapurthala under Section 144 of the Code. Thus, it was alleged that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 188 IPC. 3. The District Magistrate, Kapurthala, in exercise of the power under Section 144 of the Code had issued an order dated 18.9.2003 which directed that no chemists/medical stores in the District would sell certain medicines without prescription from a qualified doctor. It was also directed that all the chemists/medical stores/drug stores shall maintain complete record of their stock, sale, purchases, date of expiry of the product, which will be available to inspections to all the Executive Magistrates, gazetted police officer and any other person specifically authorized in this regard by the District Magistrate. The said order was issued on the representation made by various social and non-government organizations to curb the menace of drug addiction, as it was brought to the notice of the authorities that various sedatives, pain killers, anti allergics, anti-asthma tables, injections and cough syrups, which are being used as intoxicants, are easily available at various medical stores without prescription from a qualified doctor. 4. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 23.7.2005, the petitioner, who was running a chemist shop, had sold 20 capsules of Spamo Proxy Won and 10 capsules of Prozine Spam to a young man without Doctors prescription and as per the order dated 18.9.2003, issued by the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, these capsules could not have been sold without Doctors prescription to any body. 5. The petitioner has sought quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the petitioner had sold the aforesaid capsules to a customer against the due prescription made by a qualified doctor. Inspite of that, he was falsely implicated by the local police in order to have illegal gratification from him. 5. The petitioner has sought quashing of the aforesaid FIR on the ground that the petitioner had sold the aforesaid capsules to a customer against the due prescription made by a qualified doctor. Inspite of that, he was falsely implicated by the local police in order to have illegal gratification from him. Secondly, as per the order dated 18.9.2003, issued by the District Magistrate, Kapurthala, raid on the premises could have been conducted by the Executive Magistrate or a gazetted police officer or any other person specifically authorised in this regard by the District Magistrate and not by an ASI who is neither a gazetted police officer nor has been given any special power or authorisation in this regard by the District Magistrate to conduct any raid. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 7. I do not find any merit in the instant petition. The order dated 18.9.2003 issued under Section 144 of the Code by the District Magistrate contains two directions, firstly that no chemist/medical store in the District would sell certain medicines (list of which has been annexed with the order) without prescription from a qualified doctor. Secondly, it directs all the chemists/medical stores/drug stores to maintain complete record of their stock, sale, purchases, date of expiry of the product, which will be available to inspections to all the Executive Magistrates, gazetted police officer and any other person specifically authorized in this regard by the District Magistrate. This order does not provide for conducting any raid on any premises. As far as the selling of certain drugs or medicines without prescription from a qualified doctor is concerned, it has been prohibited and if against the said prohibition, those drugs are being sold without medical prescription, the offender is liable to be prosecuted under Section 188 IPC. The offence under Section 188 IPC is a cognizable offence and the police has the power to take cognizance of the said offence and register the FIR. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the registration of FIR against the petitioner at the instance of ASI Karamjit Singh. However, another ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for having demanded illegal gratification is a disputed question of fact and on the basis of such disputed question, the FIR cannot be quashed. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the registration of FIR against the petitioner at the instance of ASI Karamjit Singh. However, another ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for having demanded illegal gratification is a disputed question of fact and on the basis of such disputed question, the FIR cannot be quashed. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned FIR. 8. Dismissed.