Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. the State of Bihar

Ashok Kumar Gupta vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 23, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/975735

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Gupta

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Excerpt

.....filed on the written petition of the civil surgeon-cum-c.m.o. buxar against unknown but after investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the petitioner whereas other patna high court cr.misc. no.4 of 2011 (2) dt.23-01-2012 complaint case no.21(o) of 2008 has been filed by the drug inspector against the petitioner and his wife. he further submits that allegation in both the cases are same so both the cases may be amalgamated and tried together. on a perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the allegation made in the first information report is with regard to recovery of the government medicine whereas in the complaint petition which has been filed by the drug inspector shows that apart from recovery of medicine there are other violations of the act. in this view of the matter, both the cases can not be amalgamated because prosecuting agency and allegations in both the cases are different. however, looking to the facts of the case both the cases should be tried by one court so that there may not be any inconsistency. accordingly, let the complaint case be transferred to the court of the judicial magistrate ist class, buxar where the police case is pending. with the aforesaid observations and directions this application is disposed of. (shivaji pandey, j.) vinay//-

Full Judgment

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4 of 2011 (2) dt.23-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.4 of 2011 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Gupta, son of Shiv Kumar Gupta, resident of Muhalla- Hanuman Pathak, Buxar, P.S. Buxar (Town), District-Buxar .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY”

23. 01-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 3.11.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Buxar in Cr. Misc. (T.P.) No. 33 of 2010 by which petition filed under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for amalgamation of a complaint case and police case arising out of the same occurrence has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially Buxar (T) P.S. case No.149 of 2008 has been filed on the written petition of the Civil Surgeon-cum-C.M.O. Buxar against unknown but after investigation charge- sheet was submitted against the petitioner whereas other Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4 of 2011 (2) dt.23-01-2012 Complaint Case No.21(O) of 2008 has been filed by the Drug Inspector against the petitioner and his wife. He further submits that allegation in both the cases are same so both the cases may be amalgamated and tried together. On a perusal of the complaint petition it appears that the allegation made in the First Information Report is with regard to recovery of the Government medicine whereas in the complaint petition which has been filed by the Drug Inspector shows that apart from recovery of medicine there are other violations of the Act. In this view of the matter, both the cases can not be amalgamated because prosecuting agency and allegations in both the cases are different. However, looking to the facts of the case both the cases should be tried by one court so that there may not be any inconsistency. Accordingly, let the complaint case be transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Buxar where the police case is pending. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is disposed of. (Shivaji Pandey, J.) Vinay//-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial