Karnataka High Court
M/S Tidal Laboratories Pvt.Ltd vs State At The Instance Of Assistant Drugs ... on 27 February, 2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10253/2013
BETWEEN:
M/s.Tidal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,
Patch-5, Phase-II, Gowalthai,
Bilaspur District-174 201,
Himachala Pradesh,
Represented by its Director,
Sri.Anantharam Balasubramanian,
Director,
M/s.Tidal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd.,
Patch-5, Phase-II, Gowalthai,
Bilaspur District-174 201,
Himachala Pradesh,
... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH FOR
M/S.DESU REDDY ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE)
AND:
State at the Instance of
Assistant Drugs Controller,
Uttara Kannada Circle,
Karwar.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. S.P.P.)
-2-
This criminal petition is filed under section 407 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to transfer the case registered in
C.C.No.796/1012 pending on the file of the II-Addl. JMFC,
Sirsi to the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangaluru.
This criminal petition coming on for admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking transfer of the Criminal Case No.796/2012 pending on the file of II-Additional JMFC, Sirsi to the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the accused in C.C.No.796/2012, which is filed for commission of the offence under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and rules there under. A case in C.C.No.25/2012 is pending in the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore against the petitioner. It is also filed by the Drugs Inspector, Bangalore for the offences under Section 18(a)(i) -3- and punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and rules 1940.
3. Heard Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath for M/s.Desu Reddy Associates, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Sri.V.M.Banakar, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the cases arise in respect of the manufacture and sale of a particular drug and that the question involved is the same in both the cases. Hence, he submits that it would be more convenient for the parties to appear and face trial in the same Court.
5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State submits that in C.C.No.796/2012, the complainant is from Sirsi and the witness namely CW2 is also from Sirsi and hence the accused has to bear their expenses to come to Bangaluru, if the case is transferred. On the other hand, it will be more convenient for the witnesses to depose -4- before the Court at Sirsi. It is further submitted by him that the witnesses in C.C.No.25/2012, which is pending before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore is different, so also the complainant in the said case. Hence, he submits that the transfer of the case would not serve the general convenience of the parties.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CW1-complainant in Sirsi case and CW6 in Bangalore case is common in both the cases. It is only CW2 in the Sirsi case who is a private person and that the petitioner is prepared to meet his expenses for travel from Sirsi to Bangalore on all the dates of recording his evidence. He also submits that the Drug involved is Rolosol in both the cases and in order to avoid divergent opinions, it would be in the interest of justice that both the cases are tried at one place and in one Court.
7. I have perused the complaint in the case before the Sirsi Court as well as the case before the Special Court for -5- Economic Offences, Bangalore. The offence alleged and drug involved in both the cases and the accused in both the cases are one and the same. The complainant in the Sirsi case is a witness in Bangalore case. Under the circumstances, it would tend to the general convenience of the parties if both the cases are tried together and disposed of by the same Court. Hence, this petition is allowed.
8. C.C.No.796/2012 pending on the file of the of II- Additional JMFC, Sirsi is transferred to the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore to be tried along with C.C.No.25/2012 pending on the file of the said Court on the condition that the petitioner shall bear the expenses of travel of CW2 in C.C.No.796/2012 from Sirsi to Bangalore whenever he is required to appear before the said Court. The Court is required to issued summons to CW2 only after the petitioner deposits the travelling and lodging cost of CW2. -6-
In view of the disposal of the criminal petition, I.A.No.1/2013 filed for stay is dismissed as having become unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*