RAJENDRA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. P K DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the order dated 18-4-1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Frist Class, Jaleswar, rejecting the petitioner's application for quashing the proceeding on the ground that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case.

(2.) The present case was initiated by the Drugs Inspector, Balasore Range, representing the State of Orissa against the present petitioner under Sections 27(b)(ii), 28, 28-A and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act'). After the initial statements of the complainant and the witnesses were taken, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the accused persons and fixed a date for hearing. At that stage, the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court for quashing the case on the ground that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate was beyond the scope of law and the Court had no jurisdiction to try the case under warrant procedure. However, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 13-4-1995 rejected the petition and fixed a date for further hearing.

(3.) As against the said order of rejection, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing a petition under Section 402, Cr.P.C. It has been contended that after the incorporation of Section 36-A in the Act by the amending Act of 1982, all offences under the Act punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, other than an offence under clause (b) of sub-section (i) of Section 33(1) shall be tried in a summary way by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class, specially empowered in this behalf of the State Government or by a Matropolitan Magistrate and the provision of Sections 252 to 255 (both inclusive) of the said Code shall as far as may apply to such trial. It has further been contended that the offences for which charges have been framed i.e., Sections 27(b), 28, 28-A and 27(d) of the Act, prescribed punishment for less than 3 years. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that since the trial Court has not been vested with the power to try summarily by the State Government, the trial by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaleswar is without jurisdiction and as such, illegal. It has also been contended that the learned Magistrate was wrong in proceeding with the trial under warrant procedure. It is claimed that the petitioner has been prejudiced thereby.