S.Mohan, J. - (1.)in this case is whether annexures-a to e and g, which are instructions issued by the second-appellant are binding on the drug inspector, namely the respondent herein? He questioned the validity of these instructions on the ground that they were not legally authorised, in that one such instruction was to take prior permission of the drugs controller before any prosecution was launched against the alleged offenders of the drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the act. The learned single judge concluded thus:
"... Bureaucratic resistance in the implementation and enforcement of the law is what is to be guarded against and not promoted. In the instant case, the drugs controller is under a statutory obligation to act in accordance with law and not to insist upon a subordinate official to obtain permission which is not mandated under the act. Such insistence is not only unreasonable, but also an indirect subversion of law enforcement. The conduct of the drugs controller is reprehensible to say the least."
before us, in this appeal, the drugs controller urged that unfortunately the learned single judge had not noticed the vital Provisions of the act. Our attention is drawn to sections 21, 22, 51 and 52 of the act. The first two sections clearly postulate as to how inspectors have to be appointed and how they have to exercise the powers within the local limits of the area for which they are appointed. They shall be under the control of an officer appointed in this behalf by the state government. The drug inspector is to perform the duties as adumbrated in Section 51 of the act. That shall be subject to the instructions of the controlling authority. Equally, Section 51 of the act postulates that he is acting under the instructions of the controlling authority. Therefore, to hold, as the learned single judge has done, that they are not legally warranted, is incorrect in law.
(2.)in opposition to this, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in an un- rcported judgment in sardar jaskaran singh v state of utter pradesh, cr. Revision No. 1816/1970, the Allahabad High Court held that for the prosecution launched against the alleged offenders, no sanction of the higher authorities is necessary. Therefore, the judgment of the learned single judge is correct.
(3.)on a careful consideration of the above argument, we are of the view that the learned single judge has not paid attention to the salient features of the act which have a bearing on the facts and circumstances of this case.