(iii) That to invite the mischief of an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, there must be clear evidence of inducement and a dishonest intention to deceive, leading to the delivery of property. In the present case, there is no evidence to suggest that the petitioners made any such inducement. Furthermore, it is not even the case of the prosecution that any property was delivered as a result of the alleged deception. Consequently, the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC are entirely absent, rendering the allegations of cheating against the petitioners unsustainable. The lack of any inducement or delivery of property highlights the baseless nature of the allegations and underscores the need to quash the FIR in question. (iv) That the police were not empowered to seize any drugs under the E.C. Act. The 1940 Act being a special law, takes precedence and grants powers of seizure exclusively to Drug Inspectors. In support, reliance has been placed upon Atul Garg Versus State of Punjab 2012 (3) R.C.R. (Crl.) 936 , wherein it was underscored that the specific provisions of the 1940 Act override the general provisions of the E.C. Act. Thus the actions of the police in they instant case were unauthorized and illegal, lacking the requisite legal foundation. The unauthorized actions of the police thus, violate the statutory mandate
