Uttarakhand High Court
State vs Khalid Hussain And Others on 13 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
C482 No.825 of 2024
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Tajhar Qayyum, Advocate for the applicant.
2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for
the State.
3. By means of this C482 application, the applicant has
challenged the charge sheet dated 24.08.2023,
cognizance/summoning order dated 12.04.2024 along with
complete proceedings of Criminal Case No.104 of 2024,
State Vs. Khalid Hussain and others, for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 274, 275, 276 of IPC
and Section 17 and 18 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1940), pending before
the court of learned Ist Additional Civil Judge/Judicial
Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar.
4. The main ground of challenging the entire proceedings
of the criminal case as canvassed by the learned counsel for
the applicant is that as per Section 32 of the Act of 1940,
the offences under Chapter-IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act 1940, the prosecution shall not be instituted except by
an Inspector or any Gazetted Officer of the Central
Government or State Government, authorized in writing, in
this behalf by the Central Government or State Government
by a general or special order made in this behalf by that
Government or the person aggrieved or a recognized
consumer association whether such person is a member of
that association or not.
5. In the case in hand, an FIR No.1025 of 2022 dated
29.10.2022 was lodged by the respondent no.3-informant
(Anita Bharti, Drugs Inspector, Haridwar). In order to
substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the
applicant relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma
and Others, reported in 2020 6 Supreme 1. Learned counsel
for the applicant referred to para nos.40 and 150 of the
aforesaid judgment.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that in the case of
Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), only the
offences under sections of Act of 1940 were involved, while,
in the present FIR, the offences under section IPC are also
involved; therefore, prosecution can be launched by the
police or respondent no.3-informant.
7. I have gone through the entire C482 application, FIR
as well as the cognizance order together with the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. This
Court is of the opinion, that the matter requires a detail
hearing and for that purpose, the counter affidavit is
required to be filed.
8. Issue notice to respondent no.3, returnable within two
weeks.
9. Steps to be taken within 03 days.
10. Let counter affidavit be filed by the State, within a
period of six weeks, particularly, in light of the provisions
contained under Section 32 of Act of 1940.
11. List this case on 03.11.2025.
12. Till the next date of listing, the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No.104 of 2024, State of Uttarakhand Vs.
Khalid Hussain and others, pending in the court of learned
Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, Haridwar,
shall remain stayed.
13. Stay application (IA No.1 of 2024) stands disposed-off.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
13.08.2025
SK
