Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2013 DIGILAW 132 (SC)

State of Karnataka v. Tejpal and Company

2013-01-29

H.L.DATTU, RANJAN GOGOI

body2013
ORDER : H.L. Dattu and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ. - Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No. 1569 of 2004, dated 03.03.2011. This Court while deciding the appeal filed by the State has not gone into the merits of the case, but has disposed of the appeal only on the ground that the Assistant Drug Controller is not competent to lodge a complaint under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short "the Drgus Act"). 3. On a complaint filed by the Assistant Drugs Controller before the Special Court against the accused for the commission of Economic Offences punishable under Sections 27(c) and 27(d) of the Drugs Act, the court after conducting a detailed trial has convicted and sentenced the respondents herein for simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offences punishable under Section 27(d) of the Drugs Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the respondents had filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Bangalore, who in turn has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Presiding officer. 5. It is the correctness or otherwise of the aforesaid order, which was called in question by the State before the High court. The High Court while concurring with the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court on the competence of the Assistant Drugs Controller in lodging a complaint against the respondents under the Drugs Act has rejected the appeal of the state and while doing so has not adverted to the merits of the appeal. 6. The aforesaid order is called in question by the appellant in this appeal. The appellant, along with the memorandum of appeal, has annexed a copy of the Gazette Notification No. HFW 52 IMM 94, dated 20.5.1995. The said Notification is issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Drugs Act, which is in supersession of the Notification No. HFW 135 IMM 92 dated 18.12.1992. The said Notification is issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of the Drugs Act, which is in supersession of the Notification No. HFW 135 IMM 92 dated 18.12.1992. Under the said Notification, the State has appointed the persons specified in column 2 of the table to be the Inspectors in relation to any drug or cosmetic, other than Ayurvedic Sidda or Unani within the area assigned to them as specified in the corresponding entries in column 3 of the table. A perusal of the table would sufficiently indicate that the Assistant Drugs Controller, Headquarters Bangalore, Assistant Drugs Controller (Vigilance) Bangalore, Assistant Drugs Controller (Poisons) Bangalore are designated as the Inspectors within the meaning and purposes of the Drugs Act. 7. Had the appellant brought to the notice of the court the aforesaid Notification, we are confident that the court would not have reached the conclusion as has been done in the impugned judgment and order. 8. We have perused the Notification issued by the appellant and are fully convinced that as tabulated in the specified column therein the Assistant Drugs Controller, nominated as the Inspector can also file a complaint before the Special court against persons who have contravened the provisions of the Act. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and since the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the appeal, we remit the matter to the High Court to decide the case on merits. All the other contentions are left open. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Ordered accordingly.