The State Of Karnataka vs Nadeem Ather on 23 April, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Nadeem Ather on 23 April, 2014

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

                             -1-



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2014

                            BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.887/2010

BETWEEN :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE DRUG INSPECTOR,
CIRCLE II, MYSORE.                   ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP)


AND :

NADEEM ATHER,
PROP. M/S.AJVA MEDICALS,
2-47:2, GUNDLUPET CIRCLE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.             ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.F.VARIS ALI, ADV)


      THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 2.9.2009 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND
S.J., CHAMARAJANAGAR IN CRL.RP.NO.13/2006 AND THE
ORDER DATED 8.8.2005 PASSED BY THE PRL.C.J (JR.DN) &
JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGAR IN CC.NO.6/1999 AND ETC.

    THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-



                              ORDER

Complainant in CC.No.6/1999 on the file of JMFC, Chamarajanagar, has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the order dated 8.8.2005 in discharging the respondent of the offences punishable under Sections 18(a)(vi) r/w Section 27(d) and 18(c) r/w Section 27(b)(2) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

2. Admittedly, the application filed by respondent herein seeking discharge was considered, on the ground that as on the date of alleged offences against the respondent, his application filed seeking renewal of his drug licence was pending consideration. In that view of the matter, offences alleged are held to be bad and accordingly, he was exonerated of the offences alleged. Consequently, the respondent was discharged from the proceeding initiated before the learned Magistrate. It is seen that the complainant challenged the order dated 8.8.2005 by filing a criminal revision petition in Crl.RP.No.13/2006 on the file of Sessions Court, Chamarajanagar, wherein the learned Sessions Judge on reappreciation of the material available on record felt that the -3- order passed by the learned Magistrate on 8.8.2005 is just and proper and the same is not required to be revised in the revision petition. Accordingly, dismissed the revision petition.

3. On going through the order passed by both the courts below, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, which is confirmed in the revision proceeding by the revision Court. Accordingly, this criminal petition, filed challenging the order of both the courts below, is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE nd/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court