SANDEEP TYAGI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned Senior Counsel for the complainant through Video Conferencing.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been implicated by the Police by registering offences under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 476 , 120-B IPC and under different Sections 17B(e) , 18(a)(i) , 18(a)(vi) , 18(c) , 18(a) , 18(b) read with Section 36ac , 27(a) , 27(B)(ii) , 27 (c), 27(d), 28, 28A and 18(b) of Drug And Cosmetic Act 1940.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the Police after investigation has found that one Bhupendra Kumar Sharma and Anil Sihag formed a partners Learned counsel submitted that the Police after investigation has found that one Bhupendra Kumar Sharma and Anil Sihag formed a partnership firm in the name of Ganpati Enterprises in Delhi and they had given address of their firm in Bhagirath Palace, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. Police after investigation has found that no business was carried out from the said shop.Counsel submitted that the Police after completing investigation has found that all the accused persons including the present accused petitioner were operating from Hotel All Seasons, Rudki and they were selling spurious drugs. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation levelled against the present petitioner is not of selling any spurious drugs to one firm registered as Darsh Distributors in Jaipur through other co-accused Vinay Mangal. Learned counsel submitted that the Police after investigation has found that the petitioner was a Learned counsel submitted that the Police after investigation has found that the petitioner was assigned role of transporting the medicine as per the directions of accused Bhupendra Kumar Sharma and as such the petitioner cannot be implicated in the present case.