High Court refused to quash proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as a prima facie offence was made out. Applicant allowed 30 days to surrender for bail without coercive action.
Prayer to quash proceedings refused. Appellant granted 30 days to surrender for bail without coercive action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16437 of 2012
Applicant :- Ganesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.P. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Sri A.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 16493 of 2011 (State Vs. Ajay Yadav and others), under section 18/27, 18-A/28 and 18B/28A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945, Police Station Kotwali, District Varanasi.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case pending before the court concerned is refused.
However, it is provided that if the applicant appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail may be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of 30 days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 17.4.2019 Arti
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be granted to quash the proceedings instituted under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Whether a prima facie offence has been made out against the applicant necessitating the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
What relief can be granted to the applicant pending the disposal of the bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶8
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalReferred¶8
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 · Who else cites this
State of Bihar Vs. P.P. SharmaReferred¶8
State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 · Who else cites this
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and anotherReferred¶8
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 · Who else cites this
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶10
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ganesh Yadav
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
