IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2742-2017 (O&M) JASWINDER SINGH ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent 1. Judgment reserved on 06.04.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 03.07.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 10.07.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof. Nil CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate and Mr. Sidharth Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Kumar, DAG, Haryana. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in case arising out of FIR No.202 dated 09.05.2015 registered under Section 336, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 15(2) and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Sections 18-A, 18-C and 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner on 03.06.2017 for the AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 2. The contents of the FIR read as under:- “From Dr. Neelam Kakkar SMO Pehowa Distt KKR To SHO PS Pehowa. Subject: Request of Mr. Jasvinder Singh S/o Shingara Singh R/O Kaithal Road Pehowa. On the subject cited above on the complaint basis for investigation, a team of health department visited clinic of Mr. Jasvinder Singh. On visit, Mr. Jasvinder Singh was found present. The team members Dr. Sudesh Jatiyan DAO KKR, Smt. Pooja Chaudhary & undersigned disclosed their identity and the purpose of visit. His clinic was thoroughly searched. Instruments used in Medical practice and many Allopathic medicines were found stocked in his clinic alongwith used syringes. He admitted that he is doing medical practice. He was not able to show any valid degree or registration or any valid license for practising as medical practitioner & stocking & selling Allopathic drugs. Also he is not having any purchase bills of the medicines. Since he does not have any valid registration for medical practice or any valid Drug license for stocking & selling Allopathic drugs, you are hereby requested to lodge an FIR against Mr. Jasvinder Singh under section 420, 336, of IPC, Indian Medical Council Act 15(2), 15(3) & Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 Rules 1945 18A, 18C. He refused to sign the list of drugs and the sealed box and ran away from the clinic. Enclosed is the list of Drugs and 1 sealed Box containing these drugs & instruments and Statement of Mr. Bablu. Sd/- Dr. Neelam Kakkar SMO Pehowa KKR dated 09.05.2015.”* 2. As per the prosecution case, on 09.05.2015, a health department team visited the clinic of the petitioner located on Kaithal Road, Pehowa, District AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment medicines, instruments used in medical practice and used syringes were found. The petitioner, on being questioned, failed to produce any valid medical degree, registration certificate, or drug license authorizing him to practice medicine or stock and sell allopathic drugs. Consequently, on the basis of the complaint made by Dr. Neelam Kakkar, Senior Medical Officer (SMO), Pehowa, the present FIR was registered against the petitioner. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police presented the final report/challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 03.06.2017, framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 336 IPC, Sections 18(a) and 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the revision petition in hand has been instituted and the record has been perused. All the parties have been heard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order dated 03.06.2017 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, is manifestly illegal. He contended that the petitioner holds a valid degree of Bachelor of Electro Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.E.M.S.) and is duly registered with the Electro Homoeopathic Medical Council, New Delhi. Learned counsel argued that being a qualified and registered practitioner of Electro-Homeopathy, the petitioner was fully competent to practice the said system of medicine. 6. Learned counsel next contended that Section 336 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioner as the basic ingredients of the offence are AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment committed any rash or negligent act that actually endangered human life or the personal safety of any other person. In the absence of such specific allegations, the charge under Section 336 IPC cannot be sustained. Learned counsel further contended that for offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the registration of an FIR is not permissible in law. The Act is a complete code in itself and has its own designated enforcement machinery. Under Section 32 of the Act, police officers are completely excluded from instituting prosecutions, and cognizance of offences under the Act can only be taken upon a complaint in writing by an Inspector or other authorized person. Thus, the entire police investigation and subsequent chargesheet are a nullity. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon 2013 (15) RCR (Criminal) 559 M/s Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Versus State of Bihar, 1997 (1) ECrC 588 Hindustan Lever Ltd. Versus State of Bihar, 1997 (4) RCR (Criminal) 846 Rajeev Kumar Versus State of Punjab, 2009 (3) RCR (Criminal) 586 Jeewan Kumar Raut and another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and 2020(3) RCR (Criminal) Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others. 7. Learned State counsel contended that the petitioner was found running an allopathic clinic and was stocking and selling allopathic medicines without any valid license, registration, or degree. Learned counsel submitted that the search and recovery of drugs and instruments from the petitioner's clinic are fully established and a prima facie case for the offences he has been charged is clearly made out. Learned State counsel further argued that the truthfulness, sufficiency, and probative value of the evidence on record are matters of trial and AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 8. The first point to be determined is as to whether any offence under Section 336 IPC is made out against the petitioner or not. Before proceeding further, the provision contained in Section 336 IPC is reproduced as under:- “Section 336 : Act endangering life or personal safety of others Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.” 9. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that to make out an offence under Section 336 IPC, the prosecution must show that the accused did a "rash or negligent" act that endangered human life or personal safety of others. Merely stocking medicines, conducting a medical practice or recovery of used syringes, even assuming it was without a valid registration, does not ipso facto constitute a "rash or negligent act" under Section 336 IPC in the absence of any specific allegation or evidence of an overt act endangering the life of any patient. Practicing medicine or stocking drugs without a license may attract other regulatory or penal consequences under specific statutes, but it cannot be stretched to constitute an offence under Section 336 IPC. 10. Next point to be determined is as to whether the FIR could have been got registered and matter could have been investigated and whether final report under Section 173Cr.P.C could have been presented for the offences committed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act by the Police. The answer in this is certainly AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment contained in Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is reproduced as under:- “Section 32 : Cognizance of offences (1) No prosecution under this Chapter shall be instituted except by— (a) an Inspector; or (b) any person aggrieved; or (c) 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. 11. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that no prosecution under this Chapter can be instituted except by an Inspector, or any person aggrieved or a recognized consumer association, whether such person is a member of that association or not. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Vs. Ashok Kumar case (supra) has held that in view of mandate of Section 32 of the Act and on a conspectus of powers which are available to Drug Inspector under the Act and also his duties, a police officer cannot register an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act and he cannot investigate such offences under the provisions of Cr.P.C. It has been further held that in regard to cognizable offences under Chapter IV of the Act, in view of Section 32 of the Act and also scheme of Cr.P.C, a police officer cannot prosecute offenders in regard to such offences and only the persons mentioned in AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment enacted a special mechanism and code for enforcement of provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The registration of an FIR, investigation and filing of chargesheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C by a police officer is completely barred and cognizance of offences under the said Act can be taken only on a complaint to be filed by a competent person mentioned in Section 32 of the said Act. In these circumstances, the registration of FIR and filing of final report against the petitioner under Section 173 Cr.P.C for the offences under Section 18(a) and 27(B) (ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act is patently illegal, void and no cognizance of the same could have been taken by the Court. 12. Furthermore, the petitioner has placed on record certificates showing that he possesses a degree in Bachelor of Electro Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (B.E.M.S.) and is registered with the Electro Homoeopathic Medical Council, New Delhi. Practicing Electro-Homeopathy by a registered practitioner cannot be termed as practicing allopathy or modern medicine so as to attract the penal provisions of Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, particularly when there is no material to show that the petitioner was prescribing allopathic medicines or pretending to be a registered modern medical practitioner. 13. Before framing charges, the Court must examine the facts and circumstances to see whether the necessary ingredients to make out the offences are prima facie made out or not. At the stage of framing charges, although the Trial Court is not required to conduct a full-dressed trial, it must satisfy itself that a prima facie case exists. In the present case, the charges framed against the petitioner are legally unsustainable as the necessary statutory ingredients are AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment barred. 14. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, the statutory bars, and the material on file in the correct perspective while framing charges against the petitioner. Resultantly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 15. The present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.06.2017 and order framing charges are hereby set aside, and the petitioner is ordered to be discharged. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 03.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.10 17:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment