V RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has got a chequered history.

(2.) The petitioner, the proprietor of M/s R.V. Traders is charged for the offence under section 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as TAct), punishable under section 27(b)(ii) of the Act, for dealing the drugs without any valid licence. The offence was detected by the respondent/complainant on his inspection on 17-9-1992. In 1993, a complaint was filed against the petitioner in C.C. No. 5765 of 1993, before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate. Saidapet, Madras. Even before the commencement of the trial, the petitioner filed petitions in Cr1. O.P. Nos. 3275 to 3282 of 1994, before this Court, for quashing the proceedings in this case as well as the other connected cases and obtained orders of stay, on the ground that proper and valid licence was obtained subsequently. When these matters came up for final disposal, this Court did not incline to quash the proceedings, on that ground. However, this Court observed that this ground could be urged before the trial Court at the time of trial. As the learned Counsel appeared for the petitioners in the petitions for quashing the proceedings represented that this is a warrant case, this Court while dismissing the said petitions observed that liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise the said ground before the trial Court during the course of trial to be conducted under warrant procedure. This order was passed on 25-1-1995.

(3.) After receipt of the records from this Court, the trial Court posted the case for trial. Strangely the petitioner, at the commencement of the trial on 7-12-1995 filed a petition praying the Court to try these cases summarily, as per the provisions of section 36-A of the Act. The complainant/respondent filed a counter on 19-1-1996. opposing the said prayer. On perusal of the records and after hearing both the parties, the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, has dismissed the said petition, holding that these cases are to be tried only under the warrant procedure. This order was passed on 19-4-1996. Against this order of dismissal the petitioner has resorted to this revision before this Court.