Supreme Court on Police Officers' Role Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act

The judgment has implications concerning the investigation powers of police in cases related to drugs (Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others)

Facts of the Case:

1. One Naushad Khan made an online complaint on 22.2.2018. 
2. The Commissioner (Food Protection and Drugs) directed an inquiry. The Drug Inspector, Mau, U.P., along with two others inspected the Sharda Narayan Clinic and Pharmacy, and the person who was present in the shop i.e. Ashok Sharma (accused) was directed to show papers in respect of medicines stored in the shop. 
3. Mr Sharma stated that he did not have any license though he was the owner of the medical store and that he had stored the medicines without a proper license. Thereby, he has committed offences under Section 18 and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter, "the Act").
4. On the basis of recovery made, an FIR was lodged on 22.6.2018 under Section 18 (a)(i) and Section 27 of the Act. 
5. Mr Sharma filed a writ petition for quashing the FIR and not to arrest him. The appellant, viz., the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was not made a party to the writ petition. 
6. The respondents in the writ petition presented to the High Court included the Superintendent of Police, the Station House Officer, and the Drugs Inspector, Mau, in his personal capacity. This is apart from the State of U.P. which was made the first respondent in High Court proceedings.
7. The impugned order of the High Court had allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR. The High Court reasoned that only an Inspector, a Gazetted Officer conferred with authority, a person aggrieved or recognized consumer organization is eligible to make a complaint under Section 32 of the Act. The Court then referred to other provisions of the Act including Sections 22, 23, 25, and 27 apart from Section 32 and found that the Act lays down a complete code for the trial of offences committed in respect of Drugs and Cosmetics. The Act was a special Act enacted for the trial of offences committed under the Act. No other provision would be applicable as the Act had an overriding effect over all Acts. The provisions of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) would not be applicable except as provided in the Act itself. 
8. As a result of the High Court’s order, the Centre filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Issues:

• What is the interplay between the provisions of the CrPC and the Act? 
• Whether in respect of offences falling under chapter IV of the Act, an FIR can be registered under Section 154 of the CrPC and the case investigated or whether Section 32 of the Act supplants the procedure for the investigation of offences under CrPC and the taking of cognizance of an offence under Section 190 of the CrPC?
• Can the Inspector under the Act, arrest a person in connection with an offence under Chapter IV of the Act? 

The Division Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, which was constituted to hear the matter, stated that police officers are not empowered to arrest in respect of cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act. In the case of cognizable offences listed under Chapter IV of the Act, drug inspectors could make arrests without any warrant or otherwise. 

With regards to the fact that police have already registered many cases regarding cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, the Court said such cases should be shifted to drug inspectors, if not done already, for further action under the law.