LOK RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Lok Raj has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 16 of 4.5.1994 filed under Section 27(b) (ii) read with Section 18(c) and Section 28 read with Section 18-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and all consequential proceedings which are now pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. A few facts can be noticed as follows :

(2.) Some incriminating drugs were allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 15.1.1987. With the above agreed allegations, the complaint was filed against the petitioner on 13.6.1989 (Annexure P.2). The complaint was tried as a warrant case and formal charge against the petitioner was framed on 13.11.1992 (Annexure P.3). Subsequently it came to the notice of the State that the offence is not triable as a warrant case and an application was moved by the prosecution for the return of the complaint filed by the Drug Inspector on the ground that the offence is triable in a summary manner and there is no Notification under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and as such the Court was not competent to entertain and try the complaint. After filing of the application by the State Drug Inspector, the complaint was ordered to be returned along with documents by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and that the petitioner Shri Lekh Raj was discharged, as is evident from Annexure PA. Subsequently, a fresh complaint was filed by the State under Section 27 etc. on 4.5.1994 (Annexure P.1) and the petitioner was summoned. Challenge has been given by the petitioner to the summoning order and the complaint on two folds, firstly, once order of discharge has been made it has the effect of acquittal and in these circumstances, the second complaint is not maintainable and secondly launching of the criminal complaint on 4.5.94 is an abuse of the process of law as the alleged incriminating drugs were recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 15.1.1987. So far as the first submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I am of the opinion that there is no force because the order Annexure PA has been passed in different set of circumstances as there was lack of jurisdiction and that indicates the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate used the word "discharge" in the order Annexure PA. So far as the second submission raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the right of speedy justice to the petitioner in this case has been infringed with the late submission of the complaint as on 4.5.94. Filing of fresh complaint has violated fundamental right of the petitioner as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the complaint and the summoning order stand quashed and directions are given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur not to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of this complaint. The petition stands allowed.