News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 34
Ranchi, January 7, 2026 : The High Court of Jharkhand has partially quashed criminal proceedings against a young man from Hazaribagh, holding that the police lacked legal authority to register and investigate offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary while deciding Cr.M.P. No. 2748 of 2020 filed by Aslam Parvez, also known as Aslam Pravej and Ashlam Parwej. The petitioner had challenged the FIR and subsequent cognizance order arising out of Korrah Police Station Case No. 97 of 2020.
The case originated from a routine police check in 2020, during which officers intercepted a motorcycle allegedly bearing tampered engine and chassis numbers. A search of the vehicle’s toolbox led to the recovery of two bottles of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate, a chillam allegedly used for consuming ganja, and tablets described as intoxicants. Based on this seizure, police registered an FIR and later filed a charge sheet invoking Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act along with Sections 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the entire prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was void from inception. Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling in Union of India vs Ashok Kumar Sharma, it was submitted that offences under Chapter IV of the Act can only be initiated and investigated by a Drugs Inspector and not by the police through an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The State fairly conceded that the police had erred in registering and investigating offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act but urged the court not to interfere with the proceedings relating to the IPC offences.
After examining the record, the High Court agreed with the petitioner’s legal position. The court held that the FIR, investigation, charge sheet, and cognizance order were unsustainable insofar as they related to Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, as the mandatory statutory procedure had not been followed.
Accordingly, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner only to the extent of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act offence. At the same time, it made it clear that the trial would continue for the remaining IPC charges, including allegations relating to concealment of stolen property, if otherwise made out in law.
The judgment, pronounced on 6 January 2026, reinforces settled legal principles governing prosecutions under special statutes and reiterates the limited role of the police in matters reserved for designated statutory authorities.
Case Reference: Cr.M.P. No. 2748 of 2020, Aslam Parvez @ Aslam Pravej @ Ashlam Parwej, Hazaribagh vs State of Jharkhand; Counsels: for the Petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar and Mr. Rohit Kr. Singh, Advocates; for the State, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, SC-II.
