AMBAR LAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the entire record.

(2.) This application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned summoning order dtd. 27/8/2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Ist District Bahraich in Complaint Case No.63 of 2021, under Ss. 18(c)/27b(ii), 18A/28, 18B/28A and 18(a)(i) 27 (c) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act-1940 and Rule 1945, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bahraich.

(3.) Foremost contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned summoning order dtd. 5/8/2019 is not in conformity with the averments made in the complaint filed against the applicant. In so far as the same does not disclose any offence under Ss. 18(c)/27b(ii), 18A/28, 18B/28A and 18(a)(i) 27 (c) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act1940 and Rule 1945. He also submits that even no prima facie case is disclosed against the applicant, however, learned Judicial Magistrate without applying his judicial mind passed the impugned summoning order, which is palpably illegal and deserves to be set aside.