TARSEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing of order dtd. 22/5/2018, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phul in case arising out of FIR No. 50 dtd. 27/8/2018, registered under Ss. 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') and Sec. 420 of IPC at Police Station Balianawali, District Bathinda, whereby charges under the aforesaid Sec. had been framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has also laid challenge to the order dtd. 28/9/2018, whereby the learned revisional Court had dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order dtd. 22/5/2018.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that on 27/8/2015, ASI Gurdeep Singh along with fellow police officials was on patrolling duty. He received a secret information to the effect that the petitioner had parked his car under a tree and is selling intoxicating tablets to innocent people as de-addiction medicines by representing himself as a qualified doctor and if a raid would be conducted, he could be apprehended with a huge quantity of intoxicating drugs. Believing the information to be reliable, a ruqa was sent to the police station concerned for registration of the FIR under the aforementioned provisions. Thereafter, a raid was conducted at the informed place and the petitioner was apprehended. A car parked near him was searched and recovery of 1,00,000/- intoxicant tablets was effected from the same. As per the FSL report, the recovered tablets were found containing Tramadol Hydrochloride. The petitioner was arrested and subsequently released on bail. After completion of investigation and usual formalities, challan under Sec. 173 of the Code was presented on 28/7/2017. Charges under Sec. 15 of the Act and Sec. 420 of IPC were framed against the petitioner.

(3.) During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dtd. 22/5/2018, whereby charges had been framed against him under the aforementioned provisions. Vide order dtd. 24/2/2020, this Court has directed the learned trial Court to adjourn its proceedings beyond the date fixed before this Court, which is still continuing.