DRI Vs. SATYANARAYAN AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Id. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on various grounds, however Id. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that, as regards sanction for prosecution, the court ignored the fact that sanction for prosecution had been filed with the complaint and that is why cognizance of offences was taken. Sanction of prosecutuion was proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/B and that is why the charge had been framed.

(2.) Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Id. Counsel for the DRI, has further asserted that the seizing officer PW1 Shri B.K. Bhattacharya did not appear for cross examination after charge. However, it is immaterial, keeping in view the object behind obtaining of sanction for prosecution; and in the event of any prosecution within having been incapacitated or his sudden demise, his per-charge and pre-charge cross-examination evidence will be valid.

(3.) Ld. Counsel has argued the second ground that as regards proof of sanction for prosecution, even if it is assumed that after charge cross-examination of Shri B.K. Bhattacharya was required for sanction of prosecution, the respondent could not have been acquitted. At the most, the court could have dropped the proceedings against him.