Drugs Inspector vs Varun Medical Agencies And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 767 j&K

                                                                              61



      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU
                                                         CRAA No. 65/2013

Drugs Inspector, Zone-1, Jammu                     .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
                    Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG
               vs

Varun Medical Agencies and others                             ..... Respondent(s)
                    Through: None.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
                        ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 28.02.2013 passed by the

court of Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class), Jammu(hereinafter to

be referred as the trial court), whereby the learned trial court dismissed

the complaint, titled, "State th. Drugs Inspector Jammu vs Varun

Medical Agencies and others" for non prosecution.

2. The present appeal has been filed on the ground that the aforesaid titled

complaint could not have been dismissed by the learned trial court as the

respondents 2 to 4 were yet to be served. It is also stated that the learned

trial court could have dispensed the personal attendance of the

complainant when the same was not necessary in view of the fact that the

complaint was pending for service of respondents 2 to 4. The said

complaint was filed for commission of offences under sections 18(a)(1)

of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the same is punishable in

terms of section 27(d) of the Act.

3. From the record, it is evident that the matter was listed on 22.09.2012.

The parokar on behalf of the appellant was present, summons were

ordered to be issued for procuring the presence of unserved respondents and the matter was posted for 10.12.2012. On 10.12.2012, 16.01.2013

and 16.02.2013, no one was present on behalf of the

appellant/complainant and finally taking into consideration the absence

of the complainant on three consecutive dates of hearing, the learned trial

court dismissed the complaint for non prosecution on 28.12.2013.

4. As the respondents 2 to 4 were yet to be served, the learned trial court

could have proceeded for ensuring the service of respondents 2 to 4

instead of dismissing the complaint for non prosecution. Reliance is

placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Associated Cement Co.

Ltd. vs Keshvanand, (1998) 1 SCC 687.

5. In view of the above, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of

law and accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back

to the learned trial court and the learned trial court shall proceed further

in accordance with law.

6. Disposed of.

RAJNESH OSWAL JUDGE Jammu:

20.04.2023
Rakesh
             Whether the order is speaking:       Yes/No
             Whether the order is reportable:     Yes/No