Karnataka High Court
Murali vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.780/2020
BETWEEN:
MURALI
S/O BHIMA JATTY,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT MURALI CLINIC,
DOOR NO.2, JATTY ROAD, FORT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEK N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE [THRUOGH V.C.])
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DRUG INSPECTOR,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2020 ON THE DISCHARGE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 227
OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN SPL.C.NO.86/2019 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHICKBALLAPURA AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 18(c), 18A,
2
22(1)(cca), 27(b)(ii) AND 28 OF DRUGS AND COSMETICS ACT
AND RULES THERE UNDER.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging rejection of the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging him.
3. The main contention of the petitioner before the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is that, when the prosecution has seized the drugs worth of Rs.10,000/-, 1/3rd of the same was not given to the custody of the petitioner. The counsel would also submit that the Trial Court failed to consider the grounds urged, while seeking an order of discharge. Admittedly, the investigation was started 8 months, 5 days before filing of the complaint. Initially, the panchanama was drawn on 19.05.2012 and seized the materials on 19.05.2012 3 and the complaint came to be filed on 24.01.2013, after lapse of 8 months and 5 days and the same is also not taken note by the Trial Court. Admittedly, as could be seen from the complaint, there are physician samples in his clinic and it clearly means that some ages have left the samples in the shop. The counsel would also contend that the complainant-Inspector is not having required qualification as required under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the very same grounds are also urged before the Trial Court. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that, after receipt of analysis report only, the complaint is filed and hence, there was delay in loading the complaint and based on the report only, complaint was filed and the Trial Court, after examining the complainant on 25.01.2013, took cognizance. She would also submit that the grounds which have been urged before the Trial Court is to be considered while deciding the matter on merits and the grounds which are urged are the defences to be taken at the time of trial. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
4
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also considering the grounds urged before this Court, it is the very contention that there was delay in lodging the complaint. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that, only after receipt of analysis report, the complaint was filed and private complaint was filed in accordance with the procedure. The other contention is that, after seizure of physical samples, 1/3rd of the seized articles were not provided and the same is a defence to be taken before the Trial Court.
6. Regarding the contention that the complainant- Inspector was not having required qualification, the same also to be tested in trial and on the basis of the same, the petitioner cannot be discharged.
7. The Trial Court also, considering the grounds urged in the application, comes to the conclusion that the grounds at the most would be the defence before the Trial Court and also taking note of the material on record, comes to the conclusion 5 that the material placed on record constitute prima facie evidence constituting the offences for proceeding further and there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is also stated that, while framing charge, the Court has to look into the material collected by the prosecution and the prosecution mainly relies upon the analysis report i.e., the report received in respect of the seized articles.
8. When such being the facts of the case, the very grounds urged before this Court also cannot be considered for discharging the petitioner and at the most, as held by the Trial Court, those grounds can be urged before the Trial Court at the time of trial. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise revisional powers to come to an other conclusion and the Trial Court also not committed any error in dismissing the discharge application of the petitioner.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
6
ORDER The criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST