The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rendered a significant decision asserting that law enforcement lacks the jurisdiction to conduct investigations or file First Information Reports (FIRs) under Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DC Act).

The court granted a petition seeking to annul an FIR against the director of M/s Health Biotech Limited, underscoring that evidence obtained through improper search and seizure, as evident in this case, would be deemed inadmissible during trial.

The petitioner approached the High Court, filing a plea under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, aiming to quash the FIR charging them under various sections, including 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (EC Act), and Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The director of M/s Health Biotech Limited contended that the dispatched injections to Maharashtra occurred before a government ban on export, emphasizing that the items were returned and not intended for export. Challenging the legality of the police raid and seizure of injections, the petitioner argued that the power to search and seize under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act lies with the Drug Inspector, making the FIR under this Act not maintainable under Section 32.

The bench presided by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, observed that Section 420 of the IPC pertains to the act of cheating, requiring deliberate false representation, knowledge of its falsehood, and an intent to deceive. Notably, the court stressed the necessity of establishing dishonest intent and fraudulent transactions for an offense under this section. Additionally, it emphasized the absence of allegations that the petitioner sold the injections in the domestic market.

The court also delved into the issue of whether the police possessed the power to seize the injections and conduct an investigation under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Distinguishing between the EC Act and the DC Act, the court held that the police lacked authority for inspections and seizures under these acts, highlighting the specialized nature of the DC Act over the EC Act and the CrPC.

Emphasizing the defective recovery process, the court underscored that any search and seizure not conducted in accordance with the law would hold no weight during trial. Consequently, the court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR related to the petitioner, stressing the lack of authority for investigating offenses under Section 27 of the DC Act and disputing the validity of the FIR registration under those provisions.

In summary, the court's decision rested on the inability of the police to conduct investigations under Section 27 of the DC Act, leading to the quashing of the FIR.

Case: Gaurav Chawla v State of UT Chandigarh,

CRM-M-23951-2022.