LAWS(BOM)-2021-8-73

SHUBHAM SATYANIWAS ARJUNWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On August 10, 2021
Shubham Satyaniwas Arjunwar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (original accused) are aggrieved by an order dated 23/07/2021, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-7, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the "Sessions Court"), whereby two applications for calling additional witnesses have been allowed. The petitioners further claim that the Sessions Court could not have allowed the prosecution to file supplementary charge-sheets on 24/06/2021 and 15/07/2021, since the trial had already begun and twelve witnesses already stood examined.

(2.) In the present case, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioners for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Schedule 26 of the Drug Prices Control Order 2013, read with provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as also the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The FIR was registered on 18/04/2021 and charge-sheet was filed on 03/05/2021. In the charge-sheet, it was claimed that the petitioners were liable to be prosecuted for offences under Sections 420, 188, 381 read with 34 of the IPC, as also Sections 18(c), 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioners were arrested and while the petitioner No.2 was released on bail, the petitioner No.1 continues to be behind bars. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were hoarding and blackmarketing medicines and drugs required for treatment of Covid-19 virus, in violation of relevant Government Notifications and Orders, thereby committing the said offences. Charge was framed against the petitioners on 23/06/2021. Thereafter, examination of the prosecution witnesses commenced from 25/06/2021.

(3.) A supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 24/06/2021 and recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses continued. On 15/07/2021, another supplementary charge-sheet was placed on the record, upon which the Sessions Court passed an order. By this time, nine prosecution witnesses had been examined.