1995 (8) TMI 112 - HC - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Drugs Inspector to issue notice and initiate prosecution.
2. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings.
3. Requirement of sanction from the Director of Drugs Control for initiating prosecution.
4. Competency of the Drugs Inspector to act in the matter.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Drugs Inspector to Issue Notice and Initiate Prosecution:
The appellant contended that the Drugs Inspector (second respondent) lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice or initiate prosecution since the appellant did not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the first or second respondent. The court referred to Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which defines the powers of the Inspector, including inspecting premises where drugs are manufactured, sold, or stocked, and taking samples for analysis. The court emphasized that the place of commission of the offense is what matters, not the residence of the accused. The second respondent had jurisdiction to launch prosecution because the offending drug was found within his jurisdiction. Consequently, the second respondent was well within his power and jurisdiction to initiate prosecution.

2. Maintainability of Writ Petitions Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to Quash Criminal Proceedings:
The appellant argued that a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to quash criminal proceedings, even at this stage, and that Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not an effective alternative remedy. The court referred to the decision in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, which provided guidelines for when extraordinary powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 could be invoked. The court found that the case at hand did not meet the criteria for invoking these powers and agreed with the learned single judge's decision to dismiss the writ petitions without going into the merits of the claims. The court also referenced the decision in Santhosh Dev v. Archana Guha, which held that quashing criminal proceedings under Article 226 is warranted only in cases of grave illegality.

3. Requirement of Sanction from the Director of Drugs Control for Initiating Prosecution:
The appellant contended that the prosecution was vitiated because the Inspector did not obtain sanction from the Director of Drugs Control. The court referred to the decision in Orient Paper Mills v. Union of India, which held that a statutory authority cannot take instructions from a higher authority while exercising statutory powers. However, the court distinguished this case, noting that obtaining inter-departmental sanction is an administrative matter and does not involve quasi-judicial powers. The court concluded that the decision to prosecute, which is an administrative measure to protect citizens from vexatious prosecutions, did not require sanction from the Director of Drugs Control.

4. Competency of the Drugs Inspector to Act in the Matter:
The appellant questioned the competency of the second respondent to act in the matter. The court reiterated that Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act empowers the Inspector to inspect premises and take necessary actions. The court found no prima facie lack of jurisdiction or competency in the second respondent to initiate prosecution. The court emphasized that any extenuating circumstances claimed by the appellant should be addressed during the trial and not in proceedings under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the learned single judge's decision to reject the writ petitions and leaving all contentions to be decided in the pending proceedings before the first respondent, except the one relating to the competence or jurisdiction of the second respondent to launch prosecution.

← Previous Next →