Telangana High Court
M/S Divya Pharmacy vs The State Of Telangana, on 24 July, 2023
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5477 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to set aside the order dated 11.08.2021 in STC No.8 of 2016 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2/de-facto complainant filed the complaint against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 3(d) and 7(a) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 (for short 'DMR Act'). The petitioner No.1 is manufacturer of ayurvedic drugs among other products and supplier of drugs namely 'Kanchnar Guggul' and 'Triphala Guggul' under a valid license. As per contents of the complaint, on 30.09.2015, respondent 2 No.2/de-facto complainant seized the drugs at the premises of Patanjali Arogya Kendram, Siddipet, and issued letters dated 04.11.2015 and 30.11.2015 to petitioner No.1 stating that the Drugs are violative of Section 3(d) of the DMR Act and the seizure of drugs was intimated to the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. It is further contended that basing on the private complaint, a case was registered vide STC No.8 of 2016 and the trial Court while taking cognizance of the said offence, issued summons and as case could not be completed within a period of six months, the Court issued proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioners were discharged vide order dated 13.08.2019 on the ground that there was no progress in the case. The order dated 13.08.2019 reads as follows:
"As per the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Honourable High Court vide ROC No 538/S0/2019, Dated 15.07.2019. This case is coming for appearance of accused. Report not filed. In spite of giving number of opportunities. This case is pending since 2016 without any progress. In view of the directions of the Honourable High Court for early disposal of the petty offence cases, this court is constrained to take steps in this matter. Hence proceedings are stopped under section 258 Cr.PC and the accused are discharged. As per the 3 directions of Honourable High Courts Circular ROC No 2354/OP-CELL-E/2006, Dated 09.11.2006."
4. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that after two years of the order dated 13.08.2019, respondent No.2/de-facto complainant filed a petition under Section 300 (5) Cr.P.C. seeking to reopen the case. The said petition was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 11.08.2021 on the ground that the case was 'alive' and there was representation on behalf of the accused till the date of order issued for stoppage of proceedings. The order dated 11.08.2021 reads as follows:
"This petition is filed under section 300(5) by the prosecution to re-open the case and issue summons to accused. Hear the prosecution. The present complaint is filed by the Drug Inspector, Siddipet against accused for the offence under section 7(a) of Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954. The case was at the stage of preliminary examination of accused. Accused had also filed a petition under section 305 Cr.P.C. and the same was pending. Meanwhile, on 13.08.2019, this court has issued an order to stop the proceedings in the case by basing on order of the Honourable High Court in ROC No. 538/SO/2019 Dated:
15.07.2019.
In the order issued for stoppage of proceedings, due to inadvertence, the Court has mentioned that the case is pending without any progress since 2016 and it is coming up for appearance of accused since 2016. However, 4 summons were served to accused as early as 16.02.2017 and the case was very much alive and there was representation on behalf of accused till the date of order issued for stoppage of proceedings. Hence, I see merit in this petition. IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners were shocked on coming to know about the reopening of the case and that the trial Court ought not to have reopened the case and once the discharge petition was allowed, the case cannot be reopened. Therefore, it is a fit case to set aside the order dated 11.08.2021.
6. This Court vide order dated 21.06.2023 directed the Registry to call for a report from the Court concerned as to why the case has been re-opened, once the petitioners were discharged.
7. This Court has received a report dated 20.07.2023 from the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Siddipet.
8. A perusal of the said report discloses that the complaint was registered on 20.10.2016 and after several adjournments, on 13.08.2019, the proceedings in the said STC were stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and the 5 accused were discharged as per the direction of this Court in Circular ROC No.23541OP-Cell-E/2006 dated 09.11.2006, as the case is pending since 2016 without any progress. The report further disclose that the prosecution has filed a petition on 15.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.1716 of 2019 under Section 300(5) of Cr.P.C. praying to re-open the case and issue summons to the accused persons. After hearing the prosecution, the said petition was allowed on 11.08.2021 by the trial Court.
9. On a perusal of the order of the trial Court, it is evident that that order of stoppage of proceedings was due to inadvertence. Furthermore, the report filed by the trial Court discloses that the case was pending without any progress since 2016 and basing on the petition filed under Section 300 (5) Cr.P.C., the case was reopened.
10. Section 258 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases. In any summons- case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal 6 witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge."
11. In the present case, the trial Court has stopped the proceedings in the STC No.8 of 2016 and discharged the accused vide order dated 13.08.2019. Once the trial Court has discharged the accused, the trial Court cannot try the same matter again against the same accused, which is grave error and irregularity of the trial Court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court cannot proceed further with the proceedings against the petitioners. Therefore, the order dated 11.08.2021 is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the order dated 11.08.2021 in STC No.8 of 2016 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet, is hereby set aside.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 24.07.2023 Tmk 7 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5477 OF 2023 Date: 24.07.2023 Tmk