Partly allowed

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2023A482/13729/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant challenged a summoning order in a drug offense case, claiming he was not the proprietor and thus could not produce a license, and the misbranding charge was baseless. The High Court found these pleas required examination at trial and declined to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. declined. Bail application to be heard expeditiously if filed within 15 days.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13729 of 2023 Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶3

The applicant has come up challenging the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 12 of 2020, State of U.P. through Inspector of Drugs vs. Pankaj, under Section 18C/27 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, P.S. Sikandarpur Vaishya, District Kasganj and the summoning order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Kasganj in the said case.

¶4

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations in the complaint that the proprietor of the drugs store could not produce the necessary licence is patently misconceived because the applicant is not the owner of the drug store or its proprietor but the son of the proprietor. If the proprietor had been called upon to produce the licence, he would have done so. The other allegation is about misbranding of the drugs 'Betasop' and syrup 'Aldcof 100 ml'. These drugs on being examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory, U.P. have reported to be misbranded.

¶5

Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds that so far as the first plea that the applicant could not produce the licence is concerned, it is the applicant's disputed defence that the licence stands in the name of his father and if he had been called upon to produce it, he would have done so. Therefore, this contention cannot be examined in the present proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. The other contention that the misbranding is without any basis is also not one which can be examined here because that is something which has to be determined at the trial. There is no case within the parameters of Section 482 Cr.P.C. made out by the applicants.

¶6

The prayer to quash the proceedings is, therefore, declined . However, in case, the applicant surrenders and applies for bail within 15 days, his bail application shall be heard and decided by the Courts below expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶7

Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

¶8

Order Date :- 26.4.2023/Vijay

¶9

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh @ Aakash Vs State of U.P.and Another

Prabhat Shankar Mishra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jarifudin and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagdish Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Babu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another