The State of Maharashtra v. Nareshkumar Chandulal
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Based on the above grounds, the learned Magistrate has discharged the Respondents-accused. From the evidence, it appears that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Moreover, it is seen that the [-3-] incident in question had occurred over…
Judgment
... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the Applicant-State Mr.S.V.Kotwal Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 24, 2007 DATE : OCTOBER 24, 2007 DATE : OCTOBER 24, 2007 P.C.P.C. P.C.
Heard the learned A.P.P. for the Applicant-State and the learned advocate for the Respondents-accused.
The State has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.8.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazagaon, Mumbai in [-2-] C.C.No.49/S/1989. By the said judgment and order, the Respondents-accused came to be discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 17(B)(d), 18(a)(i) and 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 27 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder.
I have perused the judgment and order dated
27.8.2004 as well as the entire evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. On going through the evidence, it is seen that there is no specific averment regarding the active role played by each of the Respondent-accused towards company. It is admitted by P.W.1 Mr.Yashwant Bobade, Drug Inspector that he is not in a position to tell as to whether the accused Nos.2 and 3 were actively engaged in the business of the firm. He has also admitted that there is no documentary evidence to show that the procedure has been complied with. There is breach of mandatory rules.
Based on the above grounds, the learned Magistrate has discharged the Respondents-accused. From the evidence, it appears that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Moreover, it is seen that the [-3-] incident in question had occurred over 18 years back. Looking to the long time gap and the evidence on record, I am not inclined to interfere with the said judgment and order. Hence, revision application is rejected.
[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 24 Oct 2007. The bench was V K TAHILRAMANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.