Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1729 (RAJ)

M. Postel v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-26

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate(Senior Division) No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 677/2008(State v. M/s. Framika Traders Ltd. & Ors.) , whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and inconsistent with the provisions of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is aged 87 years and is suffering from geriatric problem and due to which the petitioner is recommended complete bed rest, therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to appear before the learned Trial Court. The present matter pertains to Section 28 A and 28B of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the allegation against the company of which the petitioner was the managing director for the period up to 21.11.1997 was that the company was storing and selling the drug(Amicline Plus) banned by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare vide Notification No. GSR 793(E) dated 13.12.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that learned Trial Court has ignored the provision of Section 70 and Section 205 Cr.P.C. and nature of crime alleged is not grave and the punishment for such alleged crime is also not grave or could be settled in terms of money. Therefore, the petitioner's personal attendance may be exempted and the Trial Court can proceed with the trial. He, therefore, prayed that order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the learned Trial Court may be set aside and non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner may be cancelled/withdrawn and the application of the petitioner seeking personal exemption may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition and prayed for rejection of the same. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be proper to dispose of this misc. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition and prayed for rejection of the same. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be proper to dispose of this misc. petition with the direction to the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court and to file proper application for bail before the learned Trial Court and learned Trial Court will decide the same on the same day in accordance with law and thereafter, the petitioner is free to file application for exemption of personal attendance before the Trial Court and the Trial Court is also directed to decide the application in accordance with law. 5. With the above direction and observation, the petition stands disposed of. 6. Stay application also stands disposed of. *******