Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Ajay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc Petition No. 4473 of 2017
Decided On : 18-12-2017
Warrant of Arrest - Drugs and Cosmetic Act - The court modified the impugned order and directed the trial court to summon the petitioner through a bailable warrant instead of issuing a warrant of arrest, citing the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 251.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the order dated 12.1.2017 passed by the trial court in a case involving offences under Section 27(B)(ii), 28 & 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, specifically objecting to the warrant of arrest issued against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court was not justified in issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioner at first instance, and modified the impugned order to summon the petitioner through a bailable warrant.
Issues: Challenge to the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 251, which indicated that the trial court was not justified in issuing a warrant of arrest against the petitioner at first instance.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 12.1.2017 was modified, directing the trial court to summon the petitioner through a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 50,000, and providing a time frame for the petitioner to appear before the trial court and submit a bail application.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. Perused the material on record.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C., 1973 the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 12.1.2017 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Cr. Case No. 11/2017 whereby whilst taking cognizance for offences under Section 27(B)(ii), 28 & 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, the trial court issued warrant of arrest against him.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Bhadu limits his challenge to the impugned order to the extent of warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner and reserves his right to raise all the objections on merits of the case before the trial court at the appropriate stage.
4. The prayer made by Mr. Bhadu is justified.
5. Considering the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 , the trial court was not justified in issuing warrant of arrest against the petitioner at first instance.
6. Thus, the impugned order dated 12.1.2017 is modified and it is directed that the trial court shall now summon the petitioner through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner may appear before the learned trial court within a period of 60 days from today and submit a bail application upon which he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail and bonds to the trial court''s satisfaciton. In case, the petitioner fails to comply with the above direction, the order issuing warrant of arrest shall stand restored.
7. With the aforesaid direction, the misc. petition stands disposed of.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
