HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6849/2025 Dr. Raghvendra Gupta S/o Shri Brajendra Gupta, Owner And Doctor, Clinic Gupta Haddi Hospital, Near Nagar Palika, Patpara Road, Address- Bhamtipura, Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Drug Control Officer, Dholpur, Chandra Prakash Jatav. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 18A, 18B, 22(1), (CCa), 17B(e) read with Section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(i)(vi) and Sections 28, 28A, 22(3), 27(c) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, ‘the Act of 1940’). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 36AB of the Act of 1940, the offences punishable under Sections 13(a) (b), Section 22(3), Section 27(a)(c), Section 28, Section 28-A, Section 28-B and Section 30(b)(1) of the Act of 1940 are triable by the Court of Special Judge, hence, under these circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not having any jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6849/2025] for the above stated offences and he was not having any power to take cognizance against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order and the subsequent proceedings arising out of the complaint are liable to be quashed and set aside. Counsel further submits that even a notification has also been issued by the Department of Law and Justice in this regard, which also indicates the same proposition of law, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor admits that the alleged offences are triable by the Court of Special Judge in terms of Section 36AB of the Act of 1940. Counsel submits that though the complaint has been submitted before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 18A, 18B, 22(1) (CCa), 17B(e) read with Section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(i)(vi) and Sections 28, 28A, 22(3), 27(c) and 27(d) of the Act of 1940, however an application has now been submitted by the Drug Inspector for committal of the aforesaid case to the Court of Special Judge. Therefore, under these circumstances, now the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Special Judge after its committal. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the considered opinion that in terms of the Section 36AB of the Act of 1940, offences punishable under Sections 13(a)(b), Section 22 (3), Section 27(a)(c), Section 28, Section 28-A, Section 28-B and Section 30(b)(1) of the Act of 1940 are exclusively liable to be (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6849/2025] tried by the Court of Special Judge, hence, the Magistrate or Chief Judicial Magistrate have no jurisdiction to try such offence but at the same time, this Court does not find any error in the order of taking cognizance against the petitioner as an application has now been submitted by the Drug Inspector for committal of the case to the Court of Special Judge in terms of Section 36 AB of the Act of 1940. 6. Considering the above aspect of the matter, the present criminal misc. petition stands disposed of and it is expected from the concerned District and Sessions Judge to pass appropriate order of committing of the present case (trial) by the Court of Special Judge in terms of Section 36AB for trial of the petitioner before it. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/31