Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Kumar vs Inspector Customs on 5 April, 2010
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Crl. Misc. No.M-12595 of 2003
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M-12595 of 2003
Date of decision : 5.04.2010
Vijay Kumar
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
Inspector Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue, Government of India, Customs
Commissionerate, Amritsar.
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. D.D. Sharma, Senior Penal Counsel,
for the respondent.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint (Annexure P-3) filed by Inspector Customs, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Govt. of India, Customs Commissionerate, Amritsar against the petitioner under Section 8, 21, 25, 26 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
Charges were framed against the petitioner on 26.11.2002. A detailed order justifying the charges was also passed on 26.11.2002 (Annexure P-5). From November 2002 this petition remained pending at motion stage and on 5.09.2003 passing of final order was stayed. This Court had stayed further proceedings on Crl. Misc. No.M-12595 of 2003 -2- March 09, 2006. During the interregnum period of about four years, prosecution evidence commenced and prosecution witnesses were recorded. Normally order framing charge is amenable to the revisional jurisdictioin. Petitioner has opted to approach this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Though this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings and charge, yet the petitioner has to justify as to why a revision was not preferred. Consequently, once the prosecution evidence had commenced, this Court is of the view that proceedings ought to culminate into acquittal or conviction.
Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prays that he be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the arguments before the trial Court at appropriate stage. Since the petition was filed in the year 2003, taking long pendency of case into consideration, personal appearance of the petitiner is exempted subject to filing an undertaking that he shall cause appearance as and when required by the trial Court. He shall also file an undertaking that the evidence, if any, recorded in his absence but in the presence of his counsel shall be binding upon him. The trial Court may also incorporate any other condition in the undertaking to be submitted by the petitioner.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 5.04.2010 JUDGE manju