The Petitioner is a complainant in S.T.C.No.2581 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.
2.The above complainant has been given for the offence under Sections 32,
18(A)(1) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and also issued process to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under
Section 204 of Cr.P.C to drop the proceedings. The trial Court has dismissed the application by order dated 11.1.2007.Challenging the same, the respondents/accused filed a revision in Crl.R.C.No.6 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court(FTC No.II), Tirunelveli and the revisional Court allowed the revision and discharged the accused. Now challenging the same, the complainant filed the present revision.
3.The issue involved in this case is no more res-integra as per the decision reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 1927(Adalat Prasad .vs. Roopalal Jindal and others), wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that once the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summons, the accused cannot sought for dropping the proceedings invoking
Section 204 Cr.P.C and his remedy lies only by invoking the provisions of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the relevant portion of the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court above cited, is extracted hereunder:
''15.It is true that if a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, issues process without there being any allegation against the accused or any material implicating the accused or in contravention of provisions of Sections 200 and 202, the order of the Magistrate may be vitiated, but then the relief an aggrieved accused can obtain at that stage is not by invoking
Section 203 of the Code because the Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate a review of an order. Hence in the absence of any review power or inherent power with the subordinate criminal Courts, the remedy lies in invoking
Section 482 of the Code.''
4.In view of the same, since the application filed by the respondents/accused is not at all maintainable before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the Court below ought not to have reversed the judgement. In the above circumstances, the order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.
5.In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.6 of 2007, dated 5.4.2007, on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge(FTC No.II), Tirunelveli is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial as per law.
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge(FTC No.II), Tirunelveli.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.