PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint (Annexure P1) and the charges framed against them (Annexure P4, P5) are sought to be quashed.

(2.) THE District Drugs Inspector, Amritsar, filed the impugned complaint against the petitioners under section 18(8) read with Section 28(A) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act alleging that he inspected the manufacturing premises of petitioner No. 3 M/s. United Surgichem Works on march 6, 1984, of which the other two petitioner, namely, Pawan Kumar and Ved Parkash are partners. He found the petitioner Pawan Kumar present and he asked him to produce the records of the firm regarding the manufacture of drugs and sale thereof. However, Pawan Kumar failed to do so.

(3.) IN the preliminary evidence, in support of this complaint, the Drugs Inspector, Shri A.R. Bhardwaj, appeared in the witness -box as PW1. His statement (Annexure P2) shows that he was unable to support the complaint. He admitted that he did not go to the premises of the petitioner M/s. United Surgichem Works on March 6, 1984. His averment is that he had met the petitioner Pawan Kumar in the way and not in the manufacturing permise. The statement of the Drugs Inspector makes it clear that the facts mentioned in the impugned complaint are not true. On this statement no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and it would tantamount to the abuse of the process of the Court if the trial against the petitioners allowed to be contained which would be nothing more than a mock trial in the admitted circumstances.