Chattisgarh High Court
Arvind Sarkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 December, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/3
2024:CGHC:48907
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 212 of 2023
Arvind Sarkar S/o Atul Sarkar Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 18 Infront
Of Gurughashidas Mandir Bilaspur Road Kawardha, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Jitendra Patidar, Durg Inspector Office Off
Deputy Director Food And Drug Administration, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11/12/2024
1. Present is a criminal revision filed by the applicant under Section 397 of CrPC aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.2023, passed in Special Criminal Case No. 63 of 2017, by learned Special Court, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Kabirdham, whereby the charge have been framed VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN against the applicant.
Date: 2024.12.17 18:51:03 +0530 2/3
2. The brief facts of the case as projected by the applicant are that on 20.01.2015 the Drug Inspector has searched the "Maa Jagdambe Clinic" and found the applicant running clinic and selling the allopathic medicines. On being asked the applicant had shown his degree to practice in electro homeopathy, but he was unable provide any documents relating to allopathic medicine. The Drug Inspector found and seized 56 types of different allopathic medicines. Statement of applicant was recorded and it is found that the applicant used to purchase the different allopathic medicines from Vikas Medical Store, Om Chandravanshi Medical Store, Sri Medical Store and Sambhav Medicos. On 22.01.2015, the Drug Inspector has seized the medicines from applicant's clinic and a complaint has been filed under Sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 against the applicant. In support of complaint one witness has been examined. After appreciating the statement of witness and evidence, learned Special Court, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Kabirdham has passed the order and charge have been framed against the applicant, which is under challenge in the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the finding recorded by learned trial Court is illegal, improper and incorrect and is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that complaint has been filed in the year 2015 along with photocopy documents, which were never been exhibited before the Court and there is no original documents in support of the complaint. He further submits that only one witness has been examined from the list of witnesses and no receipts has been recovered from the medical 3/3 stores to show the fact that the said medicines have been purchased by the applicant to sell. He submits that the receipts of the medical stores are in the name of purchaser as RED CROSS, and thus just on the presumption the applicant cannot be charged. Therefore, the order passed by learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside and the applicant may be discharged.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and supports the order passed by learned trial Court and submits that that learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order.
5. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused.
6. Considering the overall circumstances and material available on record and the statement of witness, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order and framed charge and have not committed any error. I do not find any illegality or infirmity to interfere with the order impugned passed by learned trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the present revision petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice ved