The High Court dismissed an S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition filed by an acquitted individual challenging the taking of cognizance regarding a subsequent complaint. Finding the petition to be a non-maintainable second revision not involving exceptional circumstances.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.191/2012 and the stay application are dismissed.
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.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.191/2012 (Chand Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.191/2012 (Chand Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan)
Date of Order :: 02nd January, 2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Dr. P.C.Jain, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Sanjay Mehla, Public Prosecutor.
By the Court:
By this criminal miscellaneous petition, a challenge
has been made to the order dated 25th June, 2011 whereby revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of cognizance has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially an FIR was lodged for an offence under Section 420 & 336 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). The petitioner was acquitted therein. Subsequent to the acquittal, a complaint has been filed by the Drug Inspector for an offence under the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 ( for short “Act of 1940”). The
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.191/2012 (Chand Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan) 2
cognizance has been taken by the Court below ignoring the fact that petitioner could not have been tried on second time for the same incidence. The petitioner accordingly maintained a revision petition to challenge the order of cognizance, which has been dismissed ignoring the fact that complaint could not have been entertained after acquittal of petitioner for an offence under Section 420 and 336 of IPC. It is also stated that offence under Sections 18(A), 18 (C ), 27(B)(11) and 28 of the Act of 1940 is not made out from the facts of the record, thus the order under challenge may be set aside.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
It is a case where initially petitioner was tried for offence under Section 420 & 336 of IPC. The order of acquittal was passed and thereupon on a complaint in the hands of the Drug Inspector, cognizance has been taken for an offence under Sections 18(A), 18 (C ), 27(B)(11) and 28 of the Act of 1940.
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.191/2012 (Chand Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan)
3
After the cognizance, the petitioner challenged the order by maintaining a revision petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 25th June, 2011.
I find this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is nothing but literally a second revision petition, which is not maintainable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepti Alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai & Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 751 . Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy or show exceptional circumstances to entertain this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
It is a fact that acquittal for offence under
Sections 420 & 336 of IPC is in the year 2004 whereas complaint for offence under the Act of 1940 is in the year 1999, which is much prior to the acquittal. The proceedings for offence under the Act of 1940 can be initiated on complaint and not by lodging FIR, accordingly separate proceedings had been
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.191/2012 (Chand Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan) 4
initiated by the Drug Inspector. The cognizance on the aforesaid has been taken after considering all the aspects. The Revisional Court has further considered the issue in reference to the offence under Sections 18(A), 18 (C ), 27(B)(11) and 28 of the Act of 1940. On the threshold, it cannot be said that cognizance has wrongly been taken by the Court below and thereby dismissal of the revision is bad . Once it is not found to be a case of exceptional nature, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.
In view of discussion made above, this criminal
miscellaneous petition is dismissed so as the stay application.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.43 preety, Jr.P.A.
All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d gm en t / or d er h ave been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.
Pr eet y Asop a Jr .P.A.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable as a second revision after acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepti Alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai & Ors.Applied¶19
Deepti Alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 751 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chand Khan
State of Rajasthan
M.N. BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
