Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 5 (RAJ)

Chand Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2013-01-02

M.N.BHANDARI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By this criminal miscellaneous petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 25th June, 2011 whereby revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of cognizance has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially an FIR was lodged for an offence under Section 420 & 336 of Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The petitioner was acquitted therein. Subsequent to the acquittal, a complaint has been filed by the Drug Inspector for an offence under the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 ( for short "Act of 1940"). The cognizance has been taken by the Court below ignoring the fact that petitioner could not have been tried on second time for the same incidence. The petitioner accordingly maintained a revision petition to challenge the order of cognizance, which has been dismissed ignoring the fact that complaint could not have been entertained after acquittal of petitioner for an offence under Sections 420 and 336 of IPC. It is also stated that offence under Sections 18(A), 18 (C ), 27(B)(11) and 28 of the Act of 1940 is not made out from the facts of the record, thus the order under challenge may be set aside. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record. 4. It is a case where initially petitioner was tried for offence under Section 420 & 336 of IPC. The order of acquittal was passed and thereupon on a complaint in the hands of the Drug Inspector, cognizance has been taken for an offence under Sections 18(A), 18 (C ), 27(B)(11) and 28 of the Act of 1940. After the cognizance, the petitioner challenged the order by maintaining a revision petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25th June, 2011. 5. I find this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but literally a second revision petition, which is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepti Alias Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 751 . Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy or show exceptional circumstances to entertain this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 751 . Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy or show exceptional circumstances to entertain this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. It is a fact that acquittal for offence under Sections 420 & 336 of IPC is in the year 2004 whereas complaint for offence under the Act of 1940 is in the year 1999, which is much prior to the acquittal. The proceedings for offence under the Act of 1940 can be initiated on complaint and not by lodging FIR, accordingly separate proceedings had been initiated by the Drug Inspector. The cognizance on the aforesaid has been taken after considering all the aspects. The Revisional Court has further considered the issue in reference to the offence under Sections 18(A), 18 (C ), 27(B)(11) and 28 of the Act of 1940. On the threshold, it cannot be said that cognizance has wrongly been taken by the Court below and thereby dismissal of the revision is bad. Once it is not found to be a case of exceptional nature, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. 7. In view of discussion made above, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed so as the stay application. *******