Sunil GarodiA. Vs. State of Bihar.

Sunil GarodiA. vs State of Bihar.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Aug 06, 2010

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/915888

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/915888
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Akhilesh Chandra, J.
Decided On: Aug 06, 2010
Case Number: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.21548 OF 2005
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[P. SATHASIVAM ; H.L. GOKHALE, J.J.] - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - Punishment for murder -- Sunil Yadav s/o Musafir Yadav was instituted. Sunil Yadav was instituted. On 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at Nawada Sadar Hospital, SI Anil Kumar Gupta recorded the statement of Sunil Yadav s/o Musafir Yadav an...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 24 read with 7

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil GarodiA.

Advocate Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Adv.

Respondent

State of Bihar.

Advocate Mr. Dr. Mayanand Jha, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section 24 read with 7

Excerpt

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he had died. informant-naresh yadav (pw-9) informant-sunil yadav (a9 in fir 11/97) brahmdeo yadav, darogi mahto, sunil s/o bale yadav, maho yadav, kuldeep yadav, bale yadav, suraj yadav, shiv nandan yadav, sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav, sudhir yadav and paro mahto, total 11 persons forming a group came there and surrounded them. brahmdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto and maho yadav were armed with rifle. bale yadav, kuldeep yadav, shiv nandan yadav and suraj yadav were armed with gandassa. kuldeep yadav gave gandassa blow to munshi yadav......patna lodged the complaint against the petitioner, stating therein that m/s bishwanath balkrishna, bhagwati laxmi bazar chowk, patna city purchased a formulation in question that tetracycline eyeointment - 3 gm, batch no. t-10- 207 & t-10-208, manufactured by pilco pharma pvt. ltd. from m/s gulati enterprises (accused no. 2 non-petitioner) against invoice no. e-34 dated 15.5.1995 @ rs. twenty one per box containing twenty tubes, minus seven percent discount and special discount of seven percent thereof, that comes to rs. eighteen, paise six for twenty tubes (photocopy of purchased invoice was annexed as annexure-a with the complaint).4. further it is said that m/s biswanath balkrishna, bhagwati bazar, chowk, patna city sold tetra cycline eye ointment-3 gm. to m/s t.t. pharmaceuticals, patna against bill no. 1053 dated 26.09.1995 @ rs. three, paisa fifty per tub, plus local taxes extra, which comes to rs. seventy per pack containing twenty tubes, plus local taxes extra (photocopy of the bill was enclosed as annexure-b). it is also alleged that on basis of the price list, the price of tetra cycline eye ointment, one tube comes to rs. one paise three per tube, but it is being sold at the price higher than the price indicated in the price list and charging extra price rs. two, paise forty seven, plus local taxes i.e. paise seventeen per tube, violating paragraph 16 of the drugs (price control) order, 1995, which is punishable under section 24 of the order read with section 7 of the essential commodities act, 1955.5. the complaint petition further contain that accused no. 2, non-petitioner, appointed as stockiest for m/s pilco pharma pvt. ltd., on basis of the above fact the complainant asked to produce purchased document and price list of formulation in question i.e. tetra cycline eye ointment vide letter no. 592 dated 21.09.1996, but it was not produced (copy of letter was enclosed as annexure-d with the complaint). subsequently at the directions of the drug.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 25.07.1997 passed by Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Patna in Special Case No. 1 of 1997, taking cognizance under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

3. Admittedly the Drug Inspector, Patna lodged the complaint against the petitioner, stating therein that M/S Bishwanath Balkrishna, Bhagwati Laxmi Bazar Chowk, Patna City purchased a formulation in question that Tetracycline Eyeointment - 3 gm, Batch No. T-10- 207 & T-10-208, manufactured by Pilco Pharma Pvt. Ltd. From M/S Gulati Enterprises (accused no. 2 non-petitioner) against Invoice No. E-34 dated 15.5.1995 @ Rs. Twenty One per box containing twenty tubes, minus seven percent discount and special discount of seven percent thereof, that comes to Rs. Eighteen, Paise Six for twenty tubes (photocopy of purchased invoice was annexed as Annexure-A with the complaint).

4. Further it is said that M/S Biswanath Balkrishna, Bhagwati Bazar, Chowk, Patna City sold Tetra Cycline Eye Ointment-3 gm. to M/S T.T. Pharmaceuticals, Patna against Bill No. 1053 dated 26.09.1995 @ Rs. Three, Paisa Fifty per tub, plus local taxes extra, which comes to Rs. Seventy per pack containing twenty tubes, plus local taxes extra (photocopy of the bill was enclosed as Annexure-B). It is also alleged that on basis of the price list, the price of Tetra Cycline Eye Ointment, one tube comes to Rs. One Paise Three per tube, but it is being sold at the price higher than the price indicated in the price list and charging extra price Rs. Two, Paise Forty Seven, plus local taxes i.e. Paise Seventeen per tube, violating Paragraph 16 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, which is punishable under Section 24 of the order read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

5. The complaint petition further contain that accused no. 2, non-petitioner, appointed as stockiest for M/S Pilco Pharma Pvt. Ltd., on basis of the above fact the complainant asked to produce purchased document and price list of formulation in question i.e. Tetra Cycline Eye Ointment vide Letter No. 592 dated 21.09.1996, but it was not produced (copy of letter was enclosed as Annexure-D with the complaint). Subsequently at the directions of the Drug Controller, Bihar, Patna, prosecution report was submitted through Letter No. 1097(15) dated 10.07.1996 (copy of the same was enclosed as Annexure-E with the complaint). Accordingly, the complaint was filed for violation of Paragraphs 16 & 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995.

6. Subsequent to submission of the complaint cognizance was taken by impugned order by the court below, which is under challenge. During course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is whole saler, he sold the commodity @ Rs. Three Paise, Five per tube to the retailer, but paragraph 16 of the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 deals with the consumer, it has got no concern with the sale to the retailer and as per price list dated 01.04.1996 as Annexure-4, no wrong was committed besides there is no averment in the complaint petition, attracting application of Paragraph 20 of the order. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor while supporting the impugned order submitted that both the accused persons including the petitioner have violated the law specially paragraphs 16, 19 & 20 of the Drugs (Price Control) order, 1955.

7. During course of argument, while going through the present application, especially Annexure-1, the complaint petition filed against two named accused (non-petitioner) including the petitioner, it appears that the copy of complaint petition produced before this Court as Annexure-1, is incomplete. None of the Annexures mentioned therein as Annexure A to E, forming part of the complaint petition were filed/produced by the petitioner, in absence thereof it is difficult to appreciate the entire complaint and averments made therein.

8. Non-production of complete copy of complaint petition, which is under challenge, itself, disentitles the petitioner from any relief, specially sought to be granted under extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Court.

9. In view of the above without going to merit of the case, this application stands dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to agitate his points, if any before the court below at appropriate stage and the court concerned shall without being prejudiced of instant non- interference decide the case and the materials produced, on its own merit.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2010 Same Parties Sunil GarodiA. vs State of Bihar. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Akhilesh Chandra, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 482; Essential Co...

Criminal