Advocates:
['KULKARNI ASHUTOSH M', '', 'APPLICANT', 'P P']

912.WP1652_2001.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1652 OF 2001

Prakash Shah

... Petitioner

Vs.

M/s. Drugs India Pharmaceuticals

Distributors & Anr.

... Respondents

WRIT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2002

The Maharashtra State Chemists & Druggists

Association & Ors.

... Petitioners

Vs.

M/s. Drugs India Pharmaceuticals

Distributors & Anr.

... Respondents

WRIT PETITION NO. 401 OF 2002

Subhash Gupta & Ors.

... Petitioners

Vs.

M/s. Drugs India Pharmaceuticals

Distributors & Anr.

... Respondents

Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for the

petitioners.

Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the respondent/State.

Mr. Shailesh Majethia present in the Court.

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE: 16^th December, 2016

P.C.:

Since the issue involved in these three Writ Petitions are same,

they are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

2.

These three Writ Petitions are directed against the order dated 13^th

March, 2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik

1 / 5

Vidya Amin

912.WP1652_2001.doc

in Criminal Case No. 232 of 1999 of issuance of process against the

petitioners and also the order dated 20^th November, 2001 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge,Nashik in Criminal Revision Application

no. 117 of 2001. The petitioners in all these three petitions are the office

bearers of three associations of druggists and chemists in Maharashtra.

The complainant in Criminal Case No. 232 of 1999 is a distributor and

stockist of the medical drugs. As per his grievance, these three

associations of which the petitioners are the office bearers are inducing

the retailers/chemists and druggists to sell the medical products to the

public at higher amount over MRP (market retail price), which is illegal.

The amount collected by these retailers is not shown in their respective

balance sheet and if the retailer is not selling the drugs as directed by the

accused, then they are subjected to boycott or threats. Thus, these three

associations and their office bearers have induced the traders and retailers

in the business and as per his grievance, the amounts which are collected

over the MRP are forced to be paid to these three associations. Thus,

they are induced to pay uncalculated money by way of donation to these

associations, which amounted to extortion, misappropriation and criminal

breach of trust. After going through the complaint, the learned Magistrate

issued process on 13^th March, 2002 for the offences punishable under

sections 403, 406, 384 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved

by the said order, 5 accused persons who are the petitioners in Writ

2 / 5

912.WP1652_2001.doc

Petition Nos. 1652 of 2001 and 401 of 2002 approached the learned

Sessions Judge by filing Criminal Revision Application No. 117 of 2001

and the said Revision Application was dismissed by order dated 26^th

November, 2001.

3.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has

submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are of a general

nature and no specific instance either of extortion or misappropriation or

criminal breach of trust is made out. He submitted that the persons who

are allegedly aggrieved, should have filed the complaint and some

material should be there in the complaint to issue process under the

sections. He further points out that the complainant is a partnership

concern and they sold the firm to one Mr. Shailesh Majethia who is present

before the Court. This Shailesh Majithia is not interested to pursue the

matter. He sold the said partnership concern to some other person who is

not before the Court. He further submitted that the advocate of the

complainant who appeared in this Court for respondent no. 1 had returned

his papers to the original complainant and he has given the intimation

according