Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Rajiv Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. substandard drug complaint triggers summons proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. procedural lapses under drugs act warrant discharge. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. magistrate lacks power to recall summons or discharge. (Para 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. no discharge provision in summons cases. (Para 7) |
| 5. petition dismissed; no quashing absent records. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
The present petition has been filed against the order dated 08.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which an application seeking discharge of the applicant (the accused before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed on the ground that no such jurisdiction is vested in the Magistrate. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused and other persons asserting that he had inspected the shop being run in the name and style of M/s Shri Shri Medical Store, situated opposite
Magistrate in summons cases cannot discharge accused or recall summons order post-issuance; remedy is under Section 482 CrPC, not discharge application.
In summons cases, post-issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., Magistrate cannot entertain discharge or recall order; remedy lies under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Magistrate must provide a reasoned order reflecting application of mind when summoning accused, ensuring sufficient grounds exist for proceeding with the case.
The court ruled that a storekeeper cannot be prosecuted for failing to disclose drug acquisition details if he did not procure the drugs, rendering the trial court's cognizance void.
The jurisdiction of a Magistrate to try offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act remains valid despite amendments, as certain sections preserve this jurisdiction for offences with lesser penalties.
Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
Cognizance of offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act requires adherence to procedural mandates, especially under Section 202 of Cr. P. C when the accused is beyond jurisdiction.
A Magistrate must conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr. P.C before issuing process against an accused residing outside jurisdiction, even if cognizance can be taken for offences t....
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
