Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1410 (RAJ)

Acron Distributors v. State of Rajasthan

2014-07-17

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition is preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 42/2014 (502/2002) "Drug Control Officer; Udaipur v. M/s. Acron Distributors & Ors. pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 27(B)(1), 27(C) and 27(D) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 2. Facts in brief:- A complaint was filed by the Drugs Inspector against the petitioners in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udaipur on 17.10.2002. The Trial Court took cognisance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and summoned them to face trial. Subsequent to the recording of the pre-charge evidence, charges were framed and read over to the accused on 11.4.2005. 3. The accused Nos. 7 and 8 filed an application for dropping of the proceedings on the ground that they are not connected with the firm M/s. Acron Distributors in any manner and thus, the proceeding be dropped against them. The Trial Court by order dated 12.3.2014 rejected the said application. It was observed that the charges were framed against the accused 9 years back. The case was at the stage of recording of statement of the accused. There was no provision in law which permitted the Trial Court to drop the proceedings against the accused at this stage. The application was accordingly rejected by a detailed; order dated 4.4.2014. 4. Now the petitioners have approached this Court with this misc. petition seeking quashing of the entire complaint filed against them before the Trial Court. 5. Shri L.D. Khatri learned Counsel for the petitioners has principally assailed the proceedings on the following two grounds:- (i) There are no specific allegations in the complaint regarding the accused being responsible for the day to day affairs of the firm. (ii) That the Trial Court framed charges against the accused without providing them any opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses at the stage of pre-charge evidence. 6. He contended that the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the pre-charge stage vitiates the trial and thus, the proceedings should be quashed. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record. 8. The pre-charge evidence of the complainant's witness Lalit Ajariya was recorded on 9.11.2004. 6. He contended that the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the pre-charge stage vitiates the trial and thus, the proceedings should be quashed. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have gone through the material available on record. 8. The pre-charge evidence of the complainant's witness Lalit Ajariya was recorded on 9.11.2004. The Court provided an opportunity of cross-examine to the Counsel for the accused but he apparently did not choose to cross-examine the witness at that stage. It is a common practice that in warrant cases initiated upon complaint, Counsel for the accused refrain from cross-examining the witness at the pre-charge stage and reserve this right for the later stage i.e. the post-charge framing stage so that the defence of the accused may not be disclosed at that stage. 9. The exactly is the situation in the case at hand. The witness was offered for cross-examination but the Counsel for the-accused did not choose to do so. That apart, the irregularity if any committed by the Court is not such that it cannot be cured by Section 464 Cr.P.C. The charges were framed against the accused way-back in the year 2005. They kept silent and did not challenge the order framing charge by filing a revision etc. This clearly implies that the accused acquiesced with the proceedings. Thus, now after a delay of more than 9 years, they cannot be permitted to say that the proceedings against tern are illegal or irregular so as to quash the same at this belated stage. As observed by the Trial Court, the matter is going on at the stage of recording of the statement of the accused. The accused will always be at liberty to raise all their objections before the Trial Court at the stage of final arguments. It is expected from the Trial Court that the objections/arguments raised regarding the validity or otherwise of the proceedings shall be considered and decided as per law.The Misc. Petition and stay application are rejected as being without merit.Petition dismissed. *******