Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghwendra Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 October, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-32745 of 2012 (O&M) -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-32745 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 16, 2012.
Raghwendra Singh
... Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Punjab
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Chandan Deep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No.144 dated 29.6.2012, registered at Police Station Phase I, SAS Nagar, under Section 407 IPC.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The FIR has been registered against the owner of M/s Safexpress Pvt. Ltd. (for short the courier company). Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the agreement is between M/s Safexpress Pvt. Ltd. and Ranbaxy Laboratories for transportation of the material which included pharmaceutical ingredients. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that the petitioner is only an employee of M/s Safexpress Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner never received the drums in question, which are 72 in number. He further contends that the docket slip in pursuance to which the material was to be Crl. Misc. No. M-32745 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :- delivered to the Ranbaxy, does not bear his signatures. The consignment was picked up from F-183, Phase VIII-B, Industrial Area, Mohali and was to be transported to M/s Alchem Industries, Gujarat. Learned counsel also contends that as per the procedure of the courier company, firstly the material is taken to different offices of the courier company in the country. In sum and substance, contention of the petitioner is that when the bulk material is sent from one State to another, the vehicle concerned is taken at various stations where the offices of the courier company are in existence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has done whatever is permissible as per the agreement. Learned counsel has referred to para 21 of the agreement to contend that at the most, the Ranbaxy can claim the damages for the loss of the material in transit. Learned counsel further contends that Ranbaxy has filed the FIR only for the purpose of getting insurance claims. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that contract between Ranbaxy and M/s Safexpress Pvt. Ltd. for transportation of pharmaceutical material is subsisting and M/s Safexpress Pvt. Ltd. is ready to compensate Ranbaxy.
I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
First and foremost thing is that all the bulk material consisted pharmaceutical ingredients. It is admitted that 3000 kilograms of pharmaceutical material contraining the ingredient Cefuroxime Axetil USP, has been pilfered during the transit. The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he is not at all named in the FIR. Be that as it may, in such like cases, material is transferred through various stations, Crl. Misc. No. M-32745 of 2012 (O&M) -: 3 :- therefore, possibility of material being pilfered in transit may had come in contact with many persons at those stations, and their involvement in this racket cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation is a necessity.
Moreover, the petitioner has himself admitted that he is employee of M/s Safexpress Pvt. Ltd. and has referred to the invoice issued by the company which indicates that the involvement of the employees is highly probable because the petitioner and such others concerned from the company must be knowing the contents of the supplies. It is specifically mentioned in the contents that the pharmaceutical ingredient was Cefuroxime Axetil USP. Admittedly, out of 72 drums, 10 drums which were delivered at the destination by the courier company have been found to be of spurious quality wherein the original material has been changed. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that pharmaceutical drugs are being misused and adversely affect the health of the youth. It is further evident that the pilferage must have taken place when the material was in transit from the manufacturer to the purchaser. In these circumstances, custodial interrogation, to ascertain the origin of such illegal acts of pilferage of pharmaceutical drugs and as to how this is happening, is necessary.
Dismissed.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] October 16, 2012. Judge kadyan