Disposed

Janak Jivanlal Gandhi v. Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2006WP/499/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal writ petition without adjudication on merits. The respondent agreed to destroy banned confiscated medicine upon petitioner's submission and withdraw criminal action, while preserving claims for a sum of money deducted by another authority.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of the writ petition based on respondent's suggestion to destroy banned drugs and withdrawal of criminal action.

Janak Jivanlal Gandhi Vs Airport Authority of India and Ors. — Bombay HC (2006) — LawSathi Research

¶1

 - 1 -

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRI.W.P.NO.499 OF 1998

¶4

 Janak Jivanlal Gandhi ..Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 Airport Authority of India
 and Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr.R.S.Desai Advocate for Petitioner
 None for Respondent No.1
 Mr.D.N.Salvi Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶8

 CORAM: D.G.DESHPANDE AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶9

 DATE : APRIL 21,2006

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and
 learned advocate for Respondent No.2.
 Mr.D.D.Tipnis, Intelligence Officer of Respondent
 No.2 is present when this order is passed. None
 appears for Respondent No.1.

¶12

 2. Sufficient time was given to both sides to take
 appropriate instructions and make their statements.

¶13

 3. Now advocate for Respondent No.2 states that
 since the petitioner himself surrendered the

¶14

 - 2 -

¶15

 medicines after coming to know that one of the
 ingredients of the medicines was banned, they have
 no desire or intention to take any criminal action
 against the petitioner in that regard under any law
 in existence.

¶16

 4. The petitioner has no objection if the
 Respondent No.2 destroyed that drug or medicine in
 custody of Respondent No.2 because, in any case,
 life of the drug or medicine has come to an end.

¶17

 5. The petitioner prays that the amount of Rs.11
 lakhs is lying with Respondent No.1 and right to
 recover that amount or its part, be kept intact.

¶18

 6. We accept all the above three suggestions and
 dispose of this petition in view of the above
 suggestions. The above suggestions shall be
 treated as part of the order.

¶19

 [D.G.DESHPANDE, J.]

¶20

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Janak Jivanlal Gandhi v. Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janak Jivanlal Gandhi v. Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayeed Ahmed Sagir Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amjad Wajir Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kasam Alisha Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Rankumar Bind Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Umashankar Faguram Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hausalaprasad Dhanesh Dusad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra