S.21 Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Fresh Notification Need Not Be Issued Every Time An Inspector Is Transferred: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that it would be unreasonable to issue a notification under Section 21 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred, adding that such a narrow interpretation of the provision is not in furtherance of the object of the Act.Justice S Vishwajith Shetty in his order observed that the Section 21(1) of the Act provides that Central Government or State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint qualified persons to be Inspectors for such areas as may be assigned to them. It noted that Section 21(2) provides for powers to be exercised by an Inspector and also duties which are required to be performed and such powers and duties may be exercised or performed as may be prescribed. "Therefore, the powers and duties of the Inspector may be prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 21 and the order of transfer of an Inspector appointed under Section 21(1) would come within the realm of Sub-section (2) of Section 21 the Act of 1940. Issuance of notification as provided under subsection (1) of Section 21 of the Act of 1940, on every occasion when an Inspector is transferred is not at all practicable and if such a narrow interpretation is made, the same would be unreasonable and not in furtherance of the object of the Act"The court held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Vishwanath Kadli seeking to quash the entire proceedings registered against him for the offences punishable under Section 18(a)(vi) (prohibition on manufacturing any drug or cosmetic in contravention of Chapter IV provisions) and Section 27(d) (manufacture of spurious and unlicensed drug punishable with imprisonment). The petitioner claimed that there was no notification issued under the Act transferring the complainant–Inspector to the area where the alleged violation had occurred. It was argued that only an Inspector notified as provided under Section 21 (1), can initiate proceedings for the offences punishable under the Act.As per complaint by Assistant Drugs Controller, Gadag Circle the accused Dr. SC Nekar @ Sri. Siddappa Channabasappa Nekar was not a registered medical practitioner and was running a clinic. Though he did not possess any drug licence to sell the stock or exhibit any drug, he was purchasing allopathy drugs from the petitioner and was dispensing the same to the patients, who came to his clinic.The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Kadli Pharma, was accused of violating his license conditions by supplying the allopathic drugs to Nekar.The petitioner contended that the Gazette Notification appointing the complainant as Inspector is only for Shivamogga Circle. Subsequently, the complainant was transferred to Gadag Circle, however there was no notification issued under the Act appointing the complainant as an Inspector for Gadag Circle. It was argued that as per Section 32 (Cognizance of offences) only an Inspector as defined under Section 21 could have filed a private complaint and no Court inferior to the Court of Sessions Court can entertain such a complaint. Therefore, criminal proceedings against the petitioner based on the complaint filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate is bad in law.In view of Section 21, the court rejected the petitioner's contention that the Inspector in the present case was not competent to initiate proceedings against the accused since no notification was issued after he was transferred to Gadag Circle.The court thus said that the Magistrate before whom complaint was filed had in exercise of his powers under Section 209 Cr.P.C., has committed the case to the jurisdictional Court of Sessions Judge for trial. The court thus said that there was no illegality or irregularity in the procedure followed by the Magistrate before whom complaint was filed by competent authority.The plea was dismissed. Appearance: Advocate Sunil S Desai for Petitioner.HCGP Girija S Hiremath for RespondentCitation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 330Case Title: Vishwanath Kadli AND State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103433 OF 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

S.21 Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Fresh Notification Need Not Be Issued Every Time An Inspector Is Transferred: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

S.21 Drugs & Cosmetics Act | Fresh Notification Need Not Be Issued Every Time An Inspector Is Transferred: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers