IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED 1*:-us THE 3*" DAY or-* APRIL, ;z¢o9CCCfi f BEFGREV HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE :4. N, N¢§&(-§A§§O.I;iAN- C ,1' cgmmAL Pmngn; ;4_gCC,A2g'gaVg2§_r_>;g§ % BETWEEN ' VIJAYAKUMAR MUNOV/AT @*_JA';'AN'!'ilAL% JAIN S/0 DALAPATRAJ Age:5SYEARS,,_ OCC BUSINE$ER-.'_O if 151_"JA,KIlfi_.-RI RGAD, BANGALOR'Ei_56§053, 1 V " :PETITIONER (av SRCIQ-.!§iAHES«H ADV.) % r<ARuAfAiAi> BELGAUM RE"?TD._"BY. app HIGH coucrr OF KARNATAKA CIRCLJIT BEN-CH DHARWAD. :RESPONDENT
AC CC_(B*v,s:u. P.H. GOTKHINDI, HCGP)
CRLJ’ FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C BY THE
u .J%¥’E’I’IT’IONER PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND
QUASH THE ORDER DT.07.10.Z006 PASSED BY THE JMFC
I COURT, HUBLI IN CC M02693/O7 AND CORSEQUENTLY
QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC 140.2693/06 SO FAR
IT RELATES T0 PEFITIONER.
Xfiw
mxs psrmou comm; on FOR ADMI$Si§§j__o:4T5f§I$
om, THE couar mos THE FOLLOWING:
gaoggo
The respondent flied a..comoio!oi:..unde.f
for the offences committed ‘fingior Ss.i8.'(a){§-), read’
with S.17B(e), punisnabzeoo”Luoégf”s.2?(¢)V,” 2 ?(d) and
27(b)(ii) of the omgs am: 1940. . The
jurisdictionai.–Mao:istrz£f;e boa taAi:€oo~V.co§nizance and issued
process.” by this order of
tho TEi*a1i Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C.
» «.2. a’ ‘Potuii£oi:ei*-iooccused No.1 and a stockistnof a
5r.’a§ié:.l__ Dot? “” Cyciine Capsuies and Erythromycin
Accused No.2 is the manufacturing
co’:3j$paf3y’:t§fadV’ accused No. 3 is the manufacturing chemist.
frhe érigévance of the petitioner is that the drug in question
wrafil’ seized from the petitiona who is a stockist and
h the some to chmnicai anatysts with the
Government Analyst, Karnataka Drugs Testing Laboratory
at Bangaiore. on 27.08.05, the rapondent – compiainant
received the certificate of test analysls
After lapse of neariy two Yearslfihe com’9le:§ntSeas
against the petitioner before the ‘t-‘rial “‘(:0 1i_j’f”t:;’ “”i;;j’eaAri*;:e¢A:l
counsel for the petitioner tentendts-._that
delay, the petitioners rlght the subject
the drug In question taooratory “for chemical
analysis is taken away…I;vecfaueeA the that the life of
the drug If that is so, it is
always meg evidence before the
Trial djetence. Therefore, I decline
to exetcise “«:.:t:l:’fi{i!’.er Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Without
expteesingttelnft ooinlon on the merits of the case and also
.’ V. “-oo”ntheV§ro’u.nds by the petitioner, I am dismissing
thisu contentions urged by the petitioner In this
petltioo_.ate:E’5ett open.
Sd/-~
Judge
lM, mSéc*