UPENDRA KUMAR @ UPENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 13.11.2001 passed by the A.C.J.M., Patna City in C.B. Case No. 101 of 2001 whereby he has taken cognizance for offence under Sec. 47A of Excise Act against the petitioners. On 27.5.2001 the Excise officials raided the premises of Homeopathic Nirmanshala of M/s Global Industries. M/s Global Industries was being run by Subodh Kumar who was holding a licence for manufacturing of Homeopathic medicines. The licence was issued in the name of Subodh Kumar for running of M/s Global Industries which was valid upto 31.3.2001. As per the complaint and the seizure list in course of raid 2726.28 litres of Dr. Choice, 370.44 litres of Jeevan Tonik, 183.24 litres white alcohol and 25 jarkins of medicines under process 500 litres and 2 litre Susav in two jarkins were recovered from the premises of Global Industries. At that time Subodh Kumar was not present in factory but petitioner nos.1 and 2 were present and they were taken into custody. A case under Section 7 of Medicinal and Toilet Preparation Act has been instituted and accordingly cognizance has been taken.

(2.) THE ground which has been taken for quashing of the order taking cognizance is that the inspection report forms the basis of the complaint and the seizure list do not make out any prima facie case for offence under Sec. 47 of the Excise Act. The petitioner 'scompany M/s Global Industries was holding a valid licence which was valid upto March, 2001. Before expiry of that licence on 27.2.2001 an application for renewal of the licence was made and it was renewed with retrospective effect subsequently, as such the allegation that manufacturing was being done without holding licence is not correct.

(3.) CONSIDERING the statement made in the counter affidavit I find merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that prima facie no case under Sec. 47A of the Excise Act is made out. Only allegation is regarding manufacturing of the medicines without holding licence. Admittedly prior to the date of expiry application for renewal was made and subsequently it was renewed with retrospective effect as such it will be deemed that on the date of enquiry itself also the petitioner was holding a valid licence.