Point of law: A complaint case under Drugs and Cosmetic Act which is a special act and therefore was filed before the Special Judge. Under Section 244 and 245 of the Cr.P.C. cognizance can be taken and discharge can be considered by the Sessions Judge.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This Revision has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st, Balrampur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 17/2021, State of U.P. vs. Pramod Arora and Others, under Section 18(a) (i)/27(c) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act 1940 relating to P.S. Pachperwa, Disrict Balrampur.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. namely, Petition No. 3227 of 2021, Suraj Arora vs. State of U.P. and Another, challenging the summoning order dated 19.12.2019, relating to same Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2019. The Court was satisfied that the cognizance order and the summoning order was issued without application of mind as no facts were mentioned therein. The language of the order did not disclose any facts of the case. The Court had set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate to pass a fresh order as per law. After this order was passed by this Court on 17.09.021, the matter was reconsidered by the Court and fresh order was passed on 22.11.2021, which is challenged in this Revision.

4. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist had no role to play in the affairs of the company i.e. M/s Corona Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, as he had resigned as Director of the Company in the year 2008 and had written a letter to the Director, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Dehradun, Uttarakhand on 02.06.2011 that he had resigned from the post of Director, yet the same was not taken into account by the learned trial court. Learned trial court has erred in law recording the finding that while passing the summoning order/ cognizance order it has only to see a prima-facie case.

5. This Court has perused the order impugned.

6. It has been pointed out by learned A.G.A. that under Section 190 (A) of the Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and for summoning the accused only the papers that are submitted by the prosecution has to be taken into account. A prima-facie case alone has to be seen where the accused can be tried for the offences for which the prosecution proposes that the accused are guilt of.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1047/1048/2021, Ravindranatha Bajpe vs. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. and Others etc. decided on 27.11.2021, but no appreciation thereof is evident from the order impugned.

8. This Court has carefully gone through the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe (Supra), it appears that the Appellant before the Supreme Court was the original complainant. He had filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Mangalore on 24.09.2013 on which summons were issued to the original accused nos. 1 to 8. The original accused approached the Sessions Court in Revision. The Revision was partly allowed by the Sessions Court. Aggrieved against the same, the complainant approached the High Court. The High Court rejected the Revision filed by the appellant Ravindranath Bajpe. The complainant/ appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

9. In the original complainant filed by the appellant there were 13 accused. It was the case of the complainant that he was not absolute owner and in possession of immovable property described in the scheduled attached to the complainant and the scheduled property was surrounded by a stone wall as boundary. The scheduled properties were abutting Mangalore-Bajpe Old Airport Road and valuable trees were situated in the said property. The accused no. 1 was a company incorporated under the Companies Act and accused no. 2 was the Chairman, the accused no. 3 was the Managing Director, the accused no. 4 was the Deputy General Manager (Civil