Ajai Gupta and Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Aditya Nath Mittal, J.—List has been revised. None present for the revisionists. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ballia in S.T. No. 105 of 2009. State v. Ajai Gupta and others, by which the application u/s 227, Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

The grounds taken in the revision are that the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The trial court has completely mis-read and misinterpreted the materials on record. The medicines recovered from the possession of the revisionists were found to be of standard quality yet the court below has not considered this fact and no offence under Sections 274, 275, 276, I.P.C. is made out. There is no material and evidence on record regarding any offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 411, I.P.C. or Section 18 punishable u/s 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 1940. Merely on the allegation that some of the drugs recovered from the house of the applicants are in the nature of intoxicants, the offence u/s 8/ 21 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is also not made out. The order of the trial court is purely cryptic, erroneous and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order.

The revisionists had submitted the application 25-Kha before the trial court with the prayer to discharge them as no offence against them was made out. It is alleged that adulterated and intoxicated drugs in 24 bags were recovered from the possession of the revisionists and after investigation, the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 274, 275, 276, 419, 420, 411, I.P.C. and 18/ 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and 8/ 21 of N.D.P.S. Act was submitted. Upon hearing the A.D.G.C. (Criminal) and counsel for the accused persons, the court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons to frame the charges for the aforesaid offences. At the stage of framing of the charge, the court has to see the prima facie evidence. No such plea has been taken that the revisionists have drug licence in their favour to manufacture the aforesaid recovered drugs. It is also not alleged that the revisionists are licensed drugs suppliers. At the time of framing of charge, the court can consider the only material placed before it by the investigating agency. The charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion founded upon materials before the court which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence. The charge can also be framed even on the confession of co-accused. In the present case the court below has considered all the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that there is no mention of any such offence u/s 103/ 104 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material in the recovery memo, case diary and other papers of the prosecution to frame the charge for the aforesaid offences. There is no error of law in passing the impugned order and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is dismissed. The copy of this order be sent to the trial court immediately to proceed with the trial.