ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. No. 159 of 2013, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Though in the facts of the case, the learned Sessions Judge held that prima-facie no offence was made out against the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but it has been held that there were sufficient materials against the petitioner for framing the charge under section 28-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred this revision application in this Court.

(3.) The facts of this case lie in a short compass. A written information was given by one Santosh Kumar Das to the Officer-in-Charge of Sector-IV Police Station, Bokaro Steel City, informing that he had taken one unit of blood after giving his own blood, from the blood bank situated at Sector-IV, Plot No. G.C.-18, City Centre, Bokaro. The blood was required by him for the treatment of his mother. Subsequently, the informant learnt that the said blood bank was being run without any license, and accordingly, he gave the written information before the police, on the basis of which Sector-IV, P.S. Case No. 143 of 2012 was instituted for the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 28-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. After investigation the police submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner, being the owner of the said blood bank, and the cognizance of the offence was taken accordingly. The petitioner filed his application for discharge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected as aforementioned.