Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20385 of 2018 Applicant :- Ajay Gupta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 12 of 2014 (State vs. Ajay Gupta), under sections 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Govind Nagar, District Mathura pending in the Court of Additional District Judge-17, Agra along with summoning order dated 30.7.2014.
Learned A.G.A. has invited the attention of the Court to the order sheet of above mentioned S.S.T. Number. He submits that in spite of the summoning order dated 30.7.2014, the applicant did not appear before the Court below and consequently bailable warrant was issued against the applicant, vide order dated 15.10.2014. In the entire affidavit, there is no explanation with regard to the same. He, further, submits that when in spite of the issuance of the bailable warrants, the applicant did not appear before the Court below, non-bailable warrant was issued against the applicant, vide order dated 31.10.2014. He thus submits that the non-bailable warrant has been operating against the applicant since 31.10.2014 i.e. for more than three years and 8 months.
The applicant has chosen not to appear in the proceedings of the Court below in spite of the fact that the non-bailable warrant has been operating against the applicant since 31.10.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant was unaware of the proceedings of above mentioned case, he could not appear before the Court below and further no summons were served upon him as his address has changed. The argument so raised is wholly misconceived. From the perusal of the complaint, which is on the record at page 18 of the paper book, the address of the applicant has been mentioned as Ajay Gupta, son of Babu Lal Gupta, resident of House No. C-37, Govind Nagar, Mathura. In the present application, the same address has been mentioned. Therefore, it is impossible to believe that the applicant had no knowledge of the proceedings of the above mentioned case. The conduct of the applicant shows a total disrespect to the process of the Court.
For all the reasons mentioned herein above, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present application.
Consequently, the present application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 HSM