Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2277 (ALL)

Rajeshwari Gupta v. State of U. P

2015-08-07

ADITYA NATH MITTAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Aditya Nath Mittal, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the Criminal Complaint No.11 of 2013 in Case Crime No.326 of 2012, under Sections 18/27/18-B/28-B of Drug and Cosmetic Act, Police Station-Baghauli, District-Hardoi. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of the aforesaid case crime number. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have already tried in S.T.No.80 of 2013 for the said offence. Therefore, the subsequent complaint cannot be filed. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the said S.T. No.80 of 2013 was for the different offences while the present complaint is for not holding the Wholesale Licence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have faced the trial previously. 5. From perusal of the previous judgment passed in S.T. No.80 of 2013, it reveals that the said case was regarding the recovery of Capsicum Tincher I.P.66, Batch No.6219, while the present complaint is for violation of Section 18 (c) punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Drug & Cosmetics Act because the petitioners were not holding the licence in Form 20-B and 21-B regarding the Wholesale trading. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are being tried for the same offence twice. 6. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ready to surrender before the court below, therefore, some protection may be granted to them in the light of case of Smt. Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2005; Cr.L.J.755, which has been affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437 . 7. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437 . 7. Considering all facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioners, Smt. Rajeshwari Gupta and Vipin Kumar Gupta, surrender before the court below and move an application for bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in terms of law laid down in the case of Smt. Amrawati and another vs. State of U.P., 2005; Cr.L.J.755, which has been affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 437 . Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition is disposed of.