Court No. - 55
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 43025 of 2018
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sachan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Singh,Achint Ranjan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 23.8.2003, bailable warrant order dated 11.11.2005 and non bailable warrant order dated 26.6.2006 and also consequential order thereafter passed by C.J.M / Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad in Special Trial / Complaint Case No. 3246 of 2003 (State vs. Rajesh Sachan) arising out of Complaint Case No. 3246 of 2003, dated 23.8.2003, under section 18/27 and 18- A/28 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur, pending before Additional District Judge, Court No. 8 Allahabad.
The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At last he submitted that the applicant is ready to appear before the court and to face the trial. He sought some time to surrender before the court below.
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to quash the summoning order dated 23.8.2003, bailable warrant order dated 11.11.2005 and non-bailable warrant order dated 26.6.2006 passed in the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, then the bail application of the applicant be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. For a period of four weeks from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally
disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.11.2018 NS