PARASMAL Vs. DRUG INSPECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 397, Cr. P.C., 1973 against the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore dated 3-7-80 by which he held that he has jurisdiction to take the cognizance and try the accused under section 28(b) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1948. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised to thus.

(2.) On 21-6-77, the Drug Inspector, Banner took the sample of Elephant Brand white "Kiltanunasak dava" manufactured by M/s. Shyam Industries, Jodhpur from the shop of M/s. Agarwal and Jain Brothers, Jalore, and sent it to Public Health Laboratory, Ghaziabad for chemical analysis. It was found of sub standard quality. On enquiry, M/s. Agarwal and Jain brothers, Jalore disclosed that the said article was purchased by them from M/s. Tatiya Agencies Jalori Gate, Jodhpur through Bill No. 202 dated 12.7 76. A copy of the report of the public analyst and one sealed sample of the said article were sent to M/s. Tatiya Agencies, Jodhpur with a request to sent him its purchase Bill. Despite reminders, no reply was sent by the firm. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the accused petitioner in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore by the said Drug Inspector under the said sections of the Act. The accused was summoned. He moved an application that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said offence as no offence was committed by him within his territorial jurisdiction. After hearing the parties, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore held that he has jurisdiction to take cognizance and try the accused and rejected the application by his order under revision.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the prosecution case accused petitioner sold the said commodity to M/s. Agarwal and Jain Brothers, Jalore at Jodhpur and as such the offence punishable under section 27 (b) stood committed at Jodhpur and not at Jalore. He further contended that the letter requiring the accused petitioner to furnish the purchase bill was issued by the Drug Inspector from Barmer and it was received by the accused petitioner at Jodhpur and as such no offence punishable under section 28 of the Act stood committed at Jalore. He lastly contended that the provisions of sections 179 and 180, Cr. P.C, have wrongly been applied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Jalore. The learned Public Prosecutor tried his best to support the order under revision.