Police Not Authorised To Conduct Investigation Or Even Register An FIR U/S 27 Of Drugs Act: Punjab and Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the police lacks the authority to conduct investigations or even register an FIR under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DC Act).
The Court allowed a Petition seeking to quash an FIR filed against the director of M/s Health Biotech Limited.
The Court emphasized that the evidence obtained through improper search and seizure, as evident in this case, would be deemed inadmissible during trial.
The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul observed, “Hence, it is abundantly clear that the police had no power to conduct investigation qua offences under Section 27 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and even the FIR could not have been registered under the said provisions”.
Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai appeared for the Petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Kumar Goyal appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner approached the High Court and filed a plea under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash the FIR which charged him under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act), and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (DC Act), 1940. The Petitioner, a director of M/s Health Biotech Limited, contended that the company dispatched injections to Maharashtra before a government ban on export, but the items were returned and not intended for export. The Petitioner challenged the legality of the police raid and seizure of injections, arguing that the power to search and seize under The Drugs and Cosmetics Act lies with the Drug Inspector, and the FIR under this Act is not maintainable under Section 32.
The Court noted that section 420 of the IPC pertains to the act of cheating, involving the use of false claims to deceive someone into delivering property, altering valuable securities, or performing actions they would not have otherwise done. To establish an offence under this section, the Court observed that it is essential to demonstrate not only deliberate false representation but also the accused's knowledge of its falsehood and the intent to deceive. The Bench noted that the presence of dishonest intent is crucial, and transactions must involve fraudulent intentions; a mere breach of agreement does not qualify as a criminal offence under Section 420 of the IPC.
Additionally, the Court noted that there were no allegations that the petitioner sold the injections in the domestic market. As the petitioner, acting as the Director of the company was not apprehended with the co-accused at the hotel, and no evidence or averment suggests his collusion with them, essential elements for offences under Section 420 or 120-B of the IPC are absent.
The Court also framed the following issue: “Whether the police possessed the power to seize the injections and conduct investigation with respect to offences under Chapter IV of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act?”
The Court observed the distinction between the EC Act and the DC Act, emphasizing their specific regulatory scopes. The Bench held that the police lacked authority to conduct inspections and seizures under these acts, emphasizing the specialized nature of the DC Act over the EC Act and the CrPC.
The Bench further emphasized that any improper search and seizure would be disregarded during trial, making it unlikely to impose penalties under Section 7 of the EC Act. Additionally, the alleged offence under Section 27 of the DC Act did not prima facie appear to be established.
The Court observed, “Any search and seizure not conducted in accordance with law, as seen in the instant case, would hold no weight during trial for convicting the accused based on such evidence. Therefore, owing to the defective recovery process, there would arise no possibility of imposition of penalty under Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act”.
Given these considerations, the Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR related to the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of authority for investigating offences under Section 27 of the DC Act and disputing the validity of the FIR registration under those provisions.
“Hence, it is abundantly clear that the police had no power to conduct investigation qua offences under Section 27 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and even the FIR could not have been registered under the said provisions”, the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and quashed the impugned FIR.
Cause Title: Gaurav Chawla v State of UT Chandigarh (2023:PHHC:158379)
