[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bipin Gopaldas Taori vs State Of Maharshtra Thr Pso Ps Akot Tq ... on 13 February, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:2543-DB
Judgment
apl1262.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.1262 OF 2025
Bipin Gopaldas Taori,
age 48 years, occupation-business,
r/o Akot, taluka Akot, district Akola. ..... Applicant.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
P.S.Akot, taluka Akot, district Akola.
2. Manish Vishwasrao Gotmare,
aged about 46 years, occupation service-
Drug Inspector, O/a Food and Drug
Administration, Maharashtra
State, Civil Lines, Akola. ..... Non-applicants.
================================
Shri A.A.Naik, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Palash Mohta,
Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Nikhil Joshi, APP for the NA No.1/State.
================================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 29/01/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13/02/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri A.A.Naik for the
applicant and learned APP Shri Nikhil Joshi for the State.
Admit. Heard finally by consent.
.....2/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
2. By this application, the applicant is seeking quashing
of FIR in connection with Crime No.284/2025 registered for
offences under Sections 91, 318(4), and 319(2) of the BNS,
2023 and under Sections 18(c), 18A, and 22 of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (the D.C.Act) and under Section 5
of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the application
are as under:
4. The non-applicant No.2, who is working as Drug
Inspector in the office of the Food and Drug Administration,
lodged report with the non-applicant No.1 police station on
13.8.2025. It is alleged in the said report that on 27.6.2025
the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
had written a letter to the office of the Food and Drug
Inspector, Maharashtra that they have received a complaint
that a medical store namely "M/s.Taori Medical Store,
Akot", run by the applicant as well as his brother, was
.....3/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
selling drugs, which resulted in termination of pregnancy.
Accordingly, on 3.7.2025, his office has conducted a raid on
the said premises of "M/s.Taori Medical Store", along with a
dummy patient who had been with notes of particular series
and was asked to purchase tablets relating to medical
pregnancy from the store run by the applicant. In
accordance with the said trap, the said dummy candidate
had approached the applicant and had asked for pills for
termination of pregnancy. Co-accused namely Pankaj Taori
had handed over open pills in paper to the dummy
candidate. Thereafter, the dummy candidate paid the
amount to the co-accused and, thereafter, she had given
signal to the raiding party who then conducted raid and
prepared necessary documents. The said pills were sent for
analysis to the Government Analyst, Food and Drug
Administration at Nagpur. The report was received on
18.7.2025 with a finding that the said pills have presence of
.....4/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
"Mifepristone and Misoprostol." Such ingredients are used
in pills for termination of pregnancy. Therefore, after
conducting necessary enquiry and gathering documents as
well as after issuing show cause notice to the accused
persons, the non-applicant No.2 lodged a report with the
investigating agency.
5. On receipt of the said FIR, the crime came to be
registered against the applicant.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted
that as far as allegation against the applicant is concerned,
it shows that one Pankaj Taori was present in the shop, who
has provided the said pills. As far as the applicant is
concerned, there is no specific allegation that the applicant
being the proprietor or authorized pharmacist either
directly sold or consented for the same. A bare perusal of
the FIR, it is crystal clear that no medicine was supplied
from the premises of "M/s.Taori Medical Store". The seizure
.....5/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
of unidentified items from unknown third person without
establishing a nexus with the applicant, question of
credibility of the alleged raid makes it doubtful and
unreliable. He submitted that the alleged seizure is not as
per strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the
D.C.Act. He further submitted that the applicant is not
involved either in selling any MTP Kit at "M/s.Taori Medical
Store" and, therefore, question of attraction of Sections 18A
and 18(c) of the D.C.Act do not arise. Section 22 of the
D.C.Act only provides for the powers of inspectors and by
no stretch of imagination it is applicable in the present case.
The offences are non-cognizable by the police and being it
is non-cognizable offence, on that ground itself, the FIR is
liable to be quashed and set aside. He further submitted
that there is no material whatsoever to show his physical
presence or participation in the alleged transaction. There
is no nexus between said Pankaj Taori and the applicant in
.....6/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
respect of the alleged offence. Other co-accused Pankaj
Taori has made specific statement in his reply to the
Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration that
he is neither partner nor employee nor manager of
"M/s.Taori Medical Store". Thus, no prima facie case is
made out against present applicant.
Another submission of learned Senior Counsel is that
in fact the FIR against the applicant is not maintainable as
in view of Scheme of CrPC, mandate of Section 32 of the
D.C.Act and on conspectus of powers and duties of the Drug
Inspector under the D.C.Act, a police officer has no power
to register FIR and investigate the matter under the CrPC
with respect to cognizable offences under Chapter-IV of the
D.C.Act. However, there is no bar to the police officer to
investigate and prosecute the person where he has
committed an offence as stated under Section 32(3) of the
D.C.Act i.e. in respect of an offence under Chapter-IV. If the
.....7/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
acts or omissions also constitute an offence under any other
law, it may be open to a police officer if he is otherwise
empowered under the said law to prosecute the person for
the same offence to act as such.
7. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel
for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision in the
case of Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and ors,
reported in (2021)12 SCC 674.
8. Per contra, learned APP for the State has strongly
opposed the said contentions and submitted that on
receiving the complaint, FIR was lodged and investigation
commenced. The complaint given by the Drug Inspector to
the non-applicant No.1 indicates that the dummy candidate
was sent by the office of the Food and Drug Administration
and they received the complaint from the Assistant
Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, which
indicates that the accused persons are dealing in the sell of
.....8/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
pills for the termination of pregnancy. The dummy
candidate was handed over notes which were previously
recorded by the raiding party. Co-accused Pankaj Taori has
given open pills in wrap paper to the dummy candidate.
These pills cannot be sold without the prescription of the
medical practitioner. Thus, considering the entire allegation
against the applicant, the application deserves to be
rejected.
9. In the light of the submissions made by learned
Senior Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the
State, undisputedly, the FIR came to be lodged on the basis
of a report lodged by the Food Inspector. The nature of the
allegation against the applicant is that he is proprietor of
medical shop namely "M/s.Taori Medical Store". The
Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration
received a complaint regarding sell of pills of termination of
pregnancy and, therefore, raid was conducted by the
.....9/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
complainant on 3.7.2025. The recital of the FIR further
shows that one Pankaj Taori, by accepting the amount,
handed over the said pills to the dummy candidate. During
enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner, said Pankaj Taori
specifically stated before the Assistant Commissioner that he
is not connected with "M/s.Taori Medical Store" as owner,
as partner, and as employee. Admittedly, the investigation
papers show that it was Pankaj Taori who has handed over
the said pills to the dummy candidate. The said pills are
also not handed over to the dummy candidate in the
premises of the said "M/s.Taori Medical Store".
10. In the light of the above facts, now, whether the FIR
is maintainable or not, is pivotal question which is required
to be answered.
11. Section 32 of the D.C.Act, deals with cognizance of
offences that; (1) no prosecution under this Chapter shall
be instituted except by (a) an Inspector; or (b) any gazetted
.....10/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
officer of the Central Government or a State Government
authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central
Government or a State Government or by a general or
special order made in this behalf by that Government; or (c)
the person aggrieved; or (d) a recognised consumer
association whether such person is a member of that
association or not. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this
Act, no court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try
an offence punishable under this Chapter, and (3) nothing
contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to prevent any
person from being prosecuted under any other law for any
act or omission which constitutes an offence against this
Chapter.
12. Thus, coming to Section 32 of the D.C.Act, as already
reproduced above, it falls in Chapter-IV. Inspectors are
appointed by the Central Government or the State
.....11/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
Government from persons possessing prescribed
qualifications under a notification.
Section 21 of the Act contemplates prescribing under
rules the powers which may be exercised by the Inspectors
apart from the duties which may be performed by him inter
alia.
Section 22 of the Act provides for power of search by
the Inspectors. They have power to inspect any premise,
take samples, powers of search, examine any record,
register, material object and seize them. The Legislature has,
undoubtedly, applied the provisions of the CrPC in regard to
searches under the Act.
Section 23 of the Act elaborately provides for
procedure to be adopted by Inspectors.
13. Section 32 falling under section heading 'Cognizance
of offences' declares, in specific words that prosecution
.....12/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
under Chapter-IV can be instituted only by (1) an Inspector
(2 )any gazetted officer of the Central Government or State
Government authorised in writing by the respective
Government by a general or special order made in this
behalf by the Government (3) the person aggrieved (4) a
recognised consumer association whether such person is a
member of that association or not. Section 32 further
proclaims that unless it is otherwise provided, no court
inferior to a court of session shall try an offence punishable
under Chapter-IV. Section 32(3) makes it clear that nothing
in chapter-IV would stand in the way of the person being
prosecuted against under any other law for any act or
omission which constitutes an offence against this Chapter.
Section 32 was substituted by Act 22 of 2008 and the old
Section which reads as follows:
"32. Cognizance of offences. -- (1) No prosecution
under this Chapter shall be instituted except by an
Inspector or by the person aggrieved or by a
.....13/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
recognised consumer association whether such
person is a member of that association or not.
(2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan
Magistrate or of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class
shall try an offence punishable under this Chapter.
(3) Nothing contained in this Chapter shall be
deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted
under any other law for any act or omission which
constitutes an offence against this Chapter."
14. Section 190 of the CrPC also has a title 'Cognizance
of Offence by Magistrate'. Cognizance under Section 190 is
contemplated in three different modes. They are - (1)
complaints of facts constituting such offences, (2) police
report of such facts, (3) upon any information received
from a person other than a Police Officer or upon a court
being possessed of knowledge about the commission of the
offence. In other words, where the court takes cognizance
suo motu. A comparison between Section 32 of the Act and
.....14/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
190 of the CrPC dealing with cognizance of offences, makes
it abundantly clear that the Law Giver has provided for
distinct modes in regard to prosecuting of the offences
under the general law, viz., the CrPC and the special
provision, as contained in Section 32 of the Act.
15. Section 32 of the D.C.Act undoubtedly provides for
taking cognizance of the offence by the court only at the
instance of the four categories, which are referred above.
16. Thus, it is is clear that the Legislature has not
included the Police Officer as a person who can move the
court. Before the matter reaches the court, under Section
190 of the CrPC, ordinarily starting with the lodging of the
first information report leading to the registration of the
first information report, investigation is carried out
culminating in a report under Section 173. The Police
Report, in fact, is the Report submitted under Section 173 of
the CrPC to the court. Under Section 190 of the CrPC, the
.....15/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
court may take cognizance on the basis of the police report.
Such a procedure is align to Section 32 of the Act. In other
words, it is not open to the Police Officer to submit a report
under Section 173 of the CrPC in regard to an offence under
Chapter-IV of the D.C.Act under Section 32.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India
vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and ors supra has extensively
dealt with the various provisions i.e. Sections i.e. 21, 22 and
32 of the D.C.Act as well as Sections 157, 173, 190, and
193 of the Code and observed that, "the Inspector under the
Act has been conferred with a vast and formidable array of
powers, and in an enactment like the Act, the taking of
samples, the Report given by the Competent Officer in
regard to the same and the right reserved to the concerned
person to seek a further report from the Central Laboratory,
go a long way in the successful culmination of a complaint
under Section 32 of the Act. The Inspector is, undoubtedly,
.....16/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
endowed with the power of inspection, taking samples of
any drug or cosmetic, searching any person, searching any
place, searching any vehicle, examining records, registers,
documents and other material objects and seizing the same,
requiring any person to produce any record, register or
other document. These are powers which are expressly
conferred on the Inspector. Though, a complaint could be
filed by other categories of complainants in Section 32 of
the Act, the Inspector is pivot around which the Act moves.
Rule 51(4) makes it a duty on the part of the Drug Inspector
to investigate any complaint in writing which may be made
to him. It is also his duty under Rule 51(5) to institute
prosecution in respect of breaches of the Act and the Rules
thereunder. He is also duty-bound under Rule 51(7) to
make inquiries and inspections as may be necessary to
detect sell of drugs in contravention of the Act. Under Rule
52, in regard to manufacture of drugs, it is again the duty to
.....17/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
institute prosecution for breaches besides making
inspections of all premises. This is having regard to both his
qualifications and also the powers conferred on him.
Section 23 of the Act, undoubtedly, is the procedure to be
followed by the Inspector".
While summoning up, the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed that, "it has been brought to our notice that FIRs
have been filed in regard to offences under Chapter-IV of
the Act. In the view we have taken, no further investigation
can be done by the Police Officer. However, it is in the
interest of justice that the FIRs are made over by the Police
Officers to the concerned Drugs Inspector at the earliest. We
are persuaded to issue such directions in the exercise of our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India".
18. Having regard to the provisions of Section 32 of the
D.C.Act and in view of Rule 51(4), the only drug inspector
is empowered to investigate any complaint in writing which
.....18/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
may be made to him and in view of Rule 51(5), only drug
inspector is empowered to institute prosecution in respect
of breaches of the Act and the Rules thereunder. He is also
duty-bound under Rule 51(7) to make inquiries and
inspections as may be necessary to detect sell of drugs in
contravention of the D.C.Act. Thus, the duty to institute
prosecution for breaches besides making inspections of all
premises is on the drug inspector.
19. In view of the above legal provisions, the FIR requires
to be quashed and set aside. Thus, the applicant has made
out a case that the police officer has no right to prosecute and
investigate the matter. It is only the drug inspector who can
prosecute for the breaches of the provisions of the D.C.Act.
As such, the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly,
I proceed to pass following order:
ORDER
(1) The criminal application is allowed.
.....19/-
Judgment
apl1262.25
(2) The FIR in connection with Crime No.284/2025
registered for offences under Sections 91, 318(4), and
319(2) of the BNS, 2023 and under Sections 18(c), 18A,
and 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and under
Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971 is quashed and set aside
Application stands disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../-
Date: 13/02/2026 18:58:36
