Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 856 (RAJ)

Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2004-05-27

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Case No. 522/1991 (State v. Asha Ram) for the offence under sections 18(a)(1) r/w 16, 17 and 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1940') by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali taking recourse of Section 36(a) of the Act of 1940 ordered for de novo trial when the case was posted for hearing final arguments. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : (i) That on 14.4.1989, the Drug Inspector PW-1 Raghuveer Singh Thakur inspected the firm M/s. Agarwal Agencies, Pali (accused-petitioner No. 4 at present) in the presence of Asha Ram Goyal (petitioner No. 1) and also took the samples of 4 x 200 ml. Ashoka Liquid Extract 1.P.65 B.No. 10 MD - Jan. 89, expiry 5 years from the date of manufacturing. Thereafter, through letter dated 2.5.1989 sent the above said sample to Government Analyst, Drug Testing Laboratory, Sethi Colony, Jaipur and vide report dated 21.6.1989 they were found misbranded. (ii) That after investigation a complaint was filed on 19.7.1991 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali against 12 persons inter alia stating that they have committed offence under the provisions of Act of 1940. (iii) That on that complaint, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 22.7.1991. Contents of the offence were read over to the accused-petitioners on 2.11.1999 and evidence of the prosecution was closed on 11.4.2002. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioners were recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code on 29.7.2002 and since 14.8.2002, the case was running hearing for the final argument. (iv) That from the order-sheet dated 17.5.2002, it also appears that the C.J.M. was transferred and thereafter C.J.M. was on leave or the case was adjourned for one or the other reason. Then on 9.12.2002 as stated above, order for de novo trial of warrant case instituted on the complaint was ordered. (v) That aggrieved from the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, the petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 with a prayer that the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali directing for de novo trial be quashed and set aside. 3. (v) That aggrieved from the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali, the petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 with a prayer that the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali directing for de novo trial be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised mainly two submissions that : (i) Since the incident took place on 14.4.1989 and now 15 years elapsed, therefore, criminal proceedings against the petitioners be quashed and dropped, (ii) That the order of de novo trial cannot be sustained by any law and it should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order dated 9.12.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali and submitted that the same is based on proper appreciation of material available on record and hence no interference be called for in this misc. petition and the same should be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. So far as the quashing of criminal trial is concerned, as per the record it appears that cognizance was taken on 22.7.1991 but the contents of charges were read over on 2.11.1999. Thus, there was a delay of about 8 years and the delay was caused sometimes by some accused persons, therefore, proceedings cannot be quashed and this prayer stands rejected. 7. Since the incident took place on 14.4.1989 and for that complaint was lodged on 19.7.1991 and thereafter the case was posted for final arguments since 14.8.2002, therefore, in view of the above circumstances ordering of de novo trial treating the case as warrant otherwise then on police report would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. For that, coming to the above conclusion reliance has been placed in a case of Mukesh v. State of Rajasthan. reported in 1998 RCC 341 , where this Court directed to hear the final arguments and dispose of the case on merits. Thus, from that point of view also, the order of de novo trial cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.For the reasons mentioned above, the present misc. reported in 1998 RCC 341 , where this Court directed to hear the final arguments and dispose of the case on merits. Thus, from that point of view also, the order of de novo trial cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside.For the reasons mentioned above, the present misc. petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 9.12.2002 directing de novo trial in Criminal Case No. 522/1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali is quashed and set aside and the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Pali is directed to dispose of the case on merits after hearing final arguments from both sides. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali on 21.6.2004. However, it is made clear that the counsel for the accused-petitioners may raise all the submissions which have been raised before this Court about the legality and propriety of the case before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali.Petition allowed. *******