Allowed

Dev Raj v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2013CRM-M/12120/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought to quash orders sealing petitioner's industrial premises under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The respondent CBI conceded removal of sealing upon furnishing security for potential fines, leading the court to accept the petition and direct immediate desealing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; respondent-CBI directed to deseal petitioner's premises forthwith upon furnishing security.

Dev Raj Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-12120 of 2010 (O & M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-12120 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision:-06.05.2013

Dev Raj

...Petitioner

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present:Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent-CBI.

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR J.(Oral)

¶14

Tersely, the facts and the material, which need a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record is that during the course of inspection/raid, the industrial premises of the petitioner were sealed under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The application of its release filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Haryana, vide impugned order dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure P-2).

¶15

Aggrieved thereby, the revision petition, challenging the order (Annexure P-2) was dismissed as well by the revisional court by way of impugned judgment dated 05.04.2010 (Annexure P-1).

¶16

Sequelly, the petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant petition to quash the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

During the course of hearing of the main petition, a Co-ordinate

¶18

Crl. Misc. No.M-12120 of 2010 (O & M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

Bench of this Court (Ajay Tewari, J.) passed the following order on 30.01.2013 :-

¶21

“This petition has been filed against the sealing of the factory of the petitioner under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Learned senior counsel for the applicant-petitioner states that on merits it is his case that there is no power of sealing available under the said Act but to cut short the controversy his client is ready to undertake that the respondent-CBI may remove the machinery from the factory and return the premises to the petitioner. Further that the petitioner undertakes that he will not enter the business of manufacturing any drugs at all but in the wake of the sealing six years ago he has not been able to pay even the loan that he had taken to start the business.

¶22

Learned standing counsel for the respondent-CBI states that on principle he has no objection but would require a short adjournment to get instructions from the Central Bureau of Investigation. Adjourned to 18.02.2013.”

¶23

Faced with the situation, CBI has placed on record the letter dated 04.2.2013 (Annexure RX), which in substance is as under :-

¶24

“In this regard, it is informed that the branch has examined the matter and decided not to press upon the matter in respect of desealing of the sealed premises of accused. However, we may request the Hon'ble High Court to direct accused to furnish security/bank guarantee so as to recover the fine/amount if the case ends into conviction.”

¶25

Meaning thereby the respondent-CBI has conceded the claim of the petitioner and has no objection in desealing the indicated sealed premises of the petitioner.

¶26

In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) are hereby set aside. Consequently, the respondent-CBI is directed to deseal the sealed premises of the petitioner forthwith in accordance with law.

¶27

May 06, 2013 Vijay Asija

¶28

( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) JUDGE

¶29

Crl. Misc. No.M-12120 of 2010 (O & M)

¶30

-3-

¶31

Criminal Misc. No. M-12120 of 2010 (O & M)

¶32

Dev Raj vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh

¶33

Present:Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶34

Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent-CBI.

¶35

-o-o-o-

¶36

The letter dated 04.2.2013 (Annexure RX) filed by learned counsel

¶37

for CBI is taken on record. Vide my separate order of even date, the petition has

¶38

been accepted.

¶39

May 06, 2013 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

Dev Raj v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Raj v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Balwant Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Joginder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagdish Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Raj Rani and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.