Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 357 (TRI)

Jeeban chandra Deb v. State of Tripura

2016-11-09

S.TALAPATRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. AS Lodh, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 6,7 and 8. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged before this Court for direction on the competent authority to complete the enquiry commenced on the basis of the complaint dated 12.02.2015 lodged to the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura, Agartala by the petitioner. In the complaint, it has been alleged that the petitioner is a patient of cardiac ailments and he used to purchase medicine from M/s B.P. Medical Hall, Chandinamura owned by the private respondents as represented by Mr. Lodh, learned counsel. When on 12.02.2015, he went to purchase medicine, he was refused by the said shop, pursuant to a resolution adopted by Chandimura Bazar Samity. According to the petitioner, this is an offence under Drug Control Act, 1950. 3. Under Section 8 of the Drug Control Act, 1950, if any dealer or producer unless previously authorized to do so by the Chief Commissioner, without sufficient cause refuses to sell to any person any drug within the limits as to quantity, if any, imposed by this Act shall be amenable to the criminal prosecution and will be liable to be punished under Section 13 of the Drug Control Act. Section 13 of the said Act provides as under:- “13. Penalties:- (1) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or fails to comply with any direction made under authority conferred by this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (2) A Court convicting any person of an offence punishable under this Act may order that the whole or any part of the stock of drugs in respect of which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to the Government. (3) It shall be a defence for a person charged with a contravention of any of the provisions of this section to prove that, in relation to the matter in respect of which he is charged, he acted in the course of his employment as a servant or agent of another person on the instructions of his employer or of some other specified person.” 4. Mr. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that the allegation on the face of it clearly makes out an offence under Section 8 of the Drug Control Act, 1950. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further submitted that Chandinamura Bazar Samity had given a “call for boycotting” the petitioner by all the shopkeepers in that market who are supposed to be the member of that Samity. 5. By filing the reply, the respondent No 6,7 and 8 have submitted a copy of the resolution dated 17.02.2015 of the said Bazar Samity. The Bazar Samity had withdrawn their earlier decision of ex-communicating the petitioner. A copy of the said resolution is available at Annexure R-2 of their reply. 6. Mr. S. Lodh, learned Counsel has submitted that the averments made in the writ petition are entirely distorted and fabricated for purpose of serving a diabolical purpose. In the course of his submission, Mr. Lodh, learned counsel has referred to the paragraph 13 of the reply in particular, where those private respondents have stated that “on to taking the membership of the Samity, some dispute had cropped up between the petitioner and the members of the Samity and the petitioner uttered derogatory statements against the members of the Samity, and for that reason, in a meeting dated 11.02.2015, a unanimous resolution was adopted by the members of the Samity that they would not sell/purchase anything to the family members of the petitioner and his brothers, but medicine or water was kept outside the purview of ban. But the petitioner intentionally suppressed the same. It has been further asserted by the said private respondent that on 11.02.2015, Sri Jayanta Deb, son of the petitioner, purchased medicine from M/s B.P. Medical Hall. Similarly on 21.02.2015, the petitioner purchased medicines from M/s B.P. Medical Hall and on 18.02.2015, his brother, Sri Narayan Deb, also purchased medicine from M/s B.P. Medical Hall. It has been further stated by the private respondents that the family members of the petitioner used to purchase medicine on credit from said M/s B.P. Medical Hall for a long time and there was an account in the name of the son of the petitioner, Sri Chanchal Deb, who purchased medicines on credit on several dates and lastly on 19.04.2015 and by paying Rs.1,290/-, he cleared up all his dues”. Those private respondents also annexed the cash memos dated 11.02.2015, 21.02.2015 and 18.02.2015 in support of their contention. 7. Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that on receipt of the complaint, the Deputy Drug Controller directed investigation by the concerned Drug Inspector who in order to verify the substance of the complaint went to the concerned medicine shop, licensed under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, recorded the statement of the licensed dealer and submitted the investigation report to the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura, Agartala on 10.03.2016. By the order dated 04.11.2016, the Deputy Drug Controller (the respondent No.4) was asked to appear in person before this Court to apprise about the stage of the said investigation/enquiry. 8. Mr. Narayan Goswami, Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura has appeared today in person and submitted that he has received the investigation report but no final order has been passed as yet. Mr. Goswami, the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura has in clear term stated before this Court that if it is really found that for whatever reason, despite production of the prescription from the competent physician, the petitioner was not allowed to purchase drug from the said medicine shop, appropriate action would be taken. But he has at the same time submitted that from the investigation report it appears that the petitioner did not produce any prescription to the shop and that was assigned as the reason for not selling the drug to the petitioner. At this stage, this Court would not make any comment on this disputed facts as passionately contended by the parties. 9. Having considered all the submissions made and the records as produced by the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura, Agarala, this Court is of the view that so far the decision of the ex-communicating the petitioner by the members of the Bazar Samity, this dispute no more survives for any adjudication as on their own volition the Samity has withdrawn that call of ex-communicating/boycotting the petitioner. But Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the resolution of ex-communicating or boycotting the petitioner was given wide circulation by pasting the same on the door of every shop but this time when this resolution was withdrawn, the copy of the resolution was not circulated. 10. But Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the resolution of ex-communicating or boycotting the petitioner was given wide circulation by pasting the same on the door of every shop but this time when this resolution was withdrawn, the copy of the resolution was not circulated. 10. This Court is of the view, when the resolution has been withdrawn and that has been communicated by the private respondents, the past shall not be exhumed for looking at the skeleton of the enmity that has been now buried by the said resolution. Let good conscience prevail. As such, no direction is required in this matter. However, on scrutiny, it appears that the investigation report dated 10.03.2016, has not been supplied to the petitioner. 11. Having due regard to the principles of natural justice, the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura, Agartala is directed by this Court to issue a notice on the complainant, the petitioner herein, with the investigation report dated 10.03.2016 as submitted by the Deputy Drug Controller for enabling the petitioner to furnish the reply or to appear before him in person to have his say on the appointed day and time, as would be fixed by the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura. After hearing the petitioner, necessary order shall be passed by the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura, Agartala and the said exercise shall be completed within 6(six) weeks from today. It is made clear that if it surfaces that the licensed dealer i.e. M/s B.P. Medical Hall had refused the petitioner to sell the medicine even under the said boycott call or for any untenable reason, appropriate action shall be taken by the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura, Agartala in accordance with law. 12. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost. 13. The records as produced by the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura, Agartala is returned. The personal appearance of the Deputy Drug Controller, Government of Tripura is dispensed with.