BHARATKUMAR AMRATLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been preferred by the original accused of Criminal Case No. 498 of 1992 instituted on the strength of a complaint filed by the Drug Inspector Mr. RK Prajapati on 15.6.1992 for the offences punishable under section 27 and 27(A) read with section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c) and sec. 28 and 28(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ( hereinafter referred to as "the Act")

(2.) The criminal complaint by the Drug Inspector for the offences punishable under section 18(a)(1), 1`8(b), 18(a)(vi), 18(c) as well as Section 27, 28 and 28(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act came to be filed in respect of searches carried out by the Drug Department at different Medical Stores. The samples collected during the searches carried out on 15.7.1991 and 16.7.1991 of the Drugs were sent for the analysis to Government Analyst, Vadodara. According to the prosecution, the same were found not according to the standard, misbranded, adulterated and spurious, and therefore, the accused were informed about the report of the Analyst and, thereafter the complainant has filed the complaint on 16.6.1992 in the Court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

(3.) The complainant being public servant, ld. Metropolitan Magistrate issued process without recording formal statement of the complainant on oath. The case against the present petitioner registered as a private complaint within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") and is not a case instituted on police report. There was no progress in the criminal case registered against the present petitioner for about 3 and 1/2 years, it is on record that on 20.1.1996 learned APP appearing for the complainant (State) has submitted an application ex. 5 requesting the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to commit the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence under sec. 27(a) of the Act providing life imprisonment was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. This application was resisted by the petitioners-accused and a written resistance was placed before the ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Hereinafter referred to as the "ld. Magistrate"). Considering the rival contentions, ld. Magistrate rejected the application filed by the Ld. APP vide order dated 29.9.2001, i.e. to say that after lapse of about 5 and 1/2 years.