- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Suresh Prasad And Others v. State Of Bihar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners sought relief through a writ petition for unlocking the factory premises of petitioner No. 1 and for the release of seized cosmetic articles. These articles were seized in connection with Chowk P.S Case No. 150 of 2005, which involved allegations under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Copyright Act. Petitioner No. 1 held a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, for manufacturing cosmetics. The police, led by the Inspector-cum-Officer Incharge of Chowk P.S, Patna City, raided the factory and seized items used in cosmetic manufacture, alleging illegal manufacturing of different brands. The petitioners challenged the institution of the case on the ground that only a Drug Inspector is authorized under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to conduct search, seizure, and institute proceedings, contending that the police lacked jurisdiction under the Act to investigate or file a charge-sheet.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the police have jurisdiction to institute a case, conduct investigation, and file charge-sheet under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act when the Act specifically authorizes only the Drug Inspector to do so.
- Whether the prosecution initiated by the police under the Indian Penal Code and Copyright Act is valid when the subject matter falls within the purview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- Petitioner No. 1 is a licensee holding a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
- Only the Drug Inspector is authorized under sections 22 and 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to conduct search and seizure and institute cases.
- The police have no jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or to register FIRs and submit charge-sheets under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
State's Arguments
- The police officer is duly authorized to institute a case for penal offences, including those under the Copyright Act.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. The State of Bihar, 1997 1 BLJ 889 | The authority authorized under a special Act overrides general provisions; police cannot register FIR or investigate offences under the special Act. | The Court relied on this principle to hold that police lacked jurisdiction to institute or investigate offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. |
| Uma Kant Prasad v. State of Bihar, Cr. W.J.C No. 42 of 2006 | Police prosecution under Drugs and Cosmetics Act is unauthorized if not instituted by the authorized officer. | The Court applied this precedent to quash the criminal prosecution launched by police in the present case as unauthorized. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the statutory provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, specifically sections 22 and 32, which empower only the Drug Inspector to conduct searches, seizures, and institute cases under the Act. It noted that the police had initiated prosecution under the Indian Penal Code and Copyright Act, but the underlying subject matter fell within the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Court applied settled legal principles that a special Act’s specific provisions override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying on the precedent from Hindustan Lever Ltd. and a similar case from this Court (Uma Kant Prasad), the Court concluded that the police lacked jurisdiction to institute or investigate the case. Consequently, the prosecution and all acts under it were declared without jurisdiction and quashed.
Holding and Implications
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the prosecution instituted by the police under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and directing the unlocking of the factory premises and release of seized cosmetics.
The direct consequence is that the police-initiated prosecution is invalidated for lack of jurisdiction. No broader precedent beyond the immediate case was established; the ruling strictly enforces the procedural limits on police authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, reaffirming the exclusive role of the Drug Inspector in such matters.
S.P Singh, J.:— Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.
2. In the instant writ petition the petitioners pray for unlocking the factory premises of petitioner No. 1 and for releasing the seized articles (cosmetics) made in connection with Chowk P.S Case No. 150 of 2005 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 483 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 63 of the Copyright Act.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is a licensee having valid licence in the name of the firm M/s. Suresh Cosmetics under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, as contained in Annexure-1.
4. Petitioner No. 2 is son of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 3 is closely related to petitioner No. 1. He submits that the licence of petitioner No. 1 has been renewed up to 31.12.2007 He submits that the Inspector-cum-Officer Incharge, Chowk P.S, Patna City raided his premises and seized various items used in manufacture of cosmetics as would appear from the seizure list annexed with the FIR It is alleged that the petitioners were illegally manufacturing cosmetics of different brands of companies.
5. The petitioners have challenged the institution of the case by the informant who was Inspector-cum-Officer-Incharge. Chowk P.S Patna City on the ground that under section 22 read with section 32 of the Drugs ana Cosmetics Act, 1940 it is the only Drug Inspector who has been authorized to make search and seizure and to institute a case. It has also been submitted that police has no jurisdiction to investigate into the offence committed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It has been submitted that in view of section 32 of the Act, police is not empowered to register any first information report and investigate the case as well as to submit charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Police Officer is duly authorized to institute a case in respect of penal offence and in respect of offence committed under the Copyright Act.
7. It is well settled by now that the specific provision provided under the special Act would override the general provisions provided in the Cr. P.C The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. The State of Bihar . 1997 1 BLJ 889., has observed that the authority authorized Under special Act can file a complaint and the police has no jurisdiction to register a first information report and investigate into offence, under the Act.
8. A bench of this Court, in similar nature of case, in the case of Uma Kant Prasad v. State of Bihar, by order dated 23.3.2006 passed in Cr. W.J.C No. 42 of 2006 has quashed the criminal prosecution launched by the police as under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act he was not authorized to do so. In the instant case the subject matter of case falls within purview of Drugs and Cosmetics Act as would appear from perusal of F.I.R itself though it has been instituted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Copyright Act.
9. As such, the present prosecutions as initiated on the basis of the F.I.R aforesaid and all subsequent acts thereunder are without jurisdiction and are quashed.
10. In the result this application is allowed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to unlock the factories of petitioner No. 1 and release the seized articles (cosmetics) forthwith.
11. Application Allowed.
Alert