STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. NATHUMAL DAMUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Reference, which it is not possible for me to accept on the grounds made out in the judgment of reference. A few facts may shortly be stated for the purposes of the judgment. I will employ the nomenclature used for the parties in the trial Court.

(2.) THE petitioners in the Sessions Court were three of the accused along with one Nathumal Damumal trading in Deolali Camp in Nasik District. Nathumal Damumal was Accused No. 1 Accused No. 2 Messrs. India Drugs Laboratory Private Ltd. , is a drug manufacturing company in Calcutta. Accused Nos. 4 to 6 are Directors of Accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 purchased 15,000 lbs. , of tincture laricis BP 1891 manufactured by accused No. 2 on 15th March 1956. Accused No. 1 transported this tincture to Indore and thereafter sent 5000 lbs to Nasik by rail and 10000 lbs by truck to Malegaon. Drugs Department got information about these drugs having been consigned by accused No. 1, as a result of which, at both the places, i. e. at Nasik and at Malegaon, the officers intercepted the goods. Samples were taken by the Drugs Inspector at Nasik when the goods were lying in the railway yard and sent for chemical analysis to the Analyser. The Analyser certified that the samples were not according to the standard specified in the Act. As a result of this certificate all the accused were prosecuted under Section 18 (a) (I), (ii) and (iii) of the Drugs Act, 1940. Accused No. 2 had also given a warranty to accused No. 1, and therefore, an offence under Section 28 was also alleged against accused Nos. 2 to 6. Preliminary inquiry was held by the learned Magistrate and at that stage it was contended on behalf of accused Nos. 2 to 6 that so far as they were concerned the offence was completed at Calcutta and therefore they could not be tried at Nasik for the offences charged against them. It appeared to the learned Magistrate that an offence under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code was made out from the evidence on record. Heh v v v Z He, therefore held that if an offence of abetment is made out, then clearly the Nasik Court would have jurisdiction to try these offences even if the facts stated in the complaint made out a clear offence only at Calcutta, regarding the sale and the manufacture of these goods. Against this judgment accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 went in revision to the Sessions Court challenging the order oft learned trial Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge tool the view that in view of the fact that the sale in favour of accused No. 1 was completed by accused No. 2 and the others in Calcutta and they had nothing to do with transport of the goods from Calcutta to Nasik or Malegaon, they could not be said to have committed any offence within the jurisdiction of the Nasik Court. He also was of the view that in the original complaint Section 109 was not mentioned at all. Therefore, apparently he thought that a charge under Section 109 could not be framed against the accused. Under these circumstances, he made the reference for quashing the proceedings against accused Nos. 2 to 6.

(3.) THE question is, whether the accused can be regarded as having committed any offence within the jurisdiction of the Court within the meaning of Section 18 (a) of the Drugs Act, 1940. Section 18, so far as is relevant, for the purpose of this Act and the charge is to this effect: