Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 903 (PNJ)

Gopal Singh v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-11

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. Petitioner Gopal Singh filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of F.I.R. No. 140 dated August 14, 1999 registered under Section 15 of the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 read with Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940. A copy of the F.I.R. has been appended as Annexure P1 with the petition. 2. I have heard Shri Vijay K. Jindal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prem Kumar, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent. 3. In my view, the interest of justice would be well served if the petitioner is relegated to the filing of an appropriate application before the learned trial Magistrate for his discharge or dropping of the proceedings taken against him which are the subject matter of the aforesaid FIR. 4. I, therefore, dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for his discharge or dropping of to proceedings, which as subject matter of FIR in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received, before the learned trial Magistrate by taking up all such pleas which have been taken by him in the present petition and all other defence which are available to him in law. If any such application is filed, within stipulated period, before the learned trial Magistrate, then the same would be disposed of by the trial Court on merits of the controversy. 5. I further direct that till the disposal of the aforesaid application, no further proceedings in the main case shall be taken by the learned trial Magistrate. 6. The personal appearance of the petitioner would remain exempted during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate. However, the learned trial Magistrate would be well within his rights to secure the personal presence of the petitioner as and when the same is retired in accordance with law. 7. Since the matter has remained pending for a sufficiently long time in this Court, therefore, now the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible but not later than December 31, 2003.