Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 272 of 1994 and 1 of 1995. Case: Anand Mohan Chhaparwal Vs State. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 272 of 1994 and 1 of 1995 |
| Counsel | For Petitioner: M. S. Usgaoncar, Advocate with V. Menezes, Advs. and For Respondents: G. U. Bhobe, Adv. |
| Judges | T. K. C. Das, J. |
| Issue | Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act (21 of 1954) - Section 3(b) |
| Citation | 1996 CriLJ 597 |
| Judgement Date | August 03, 1995 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
These applications were filed by the accused in Criminal Case No. NC/87/91/D of 1991 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate F. C., Panaji. Criminal Misc. Application No. 272/94 was filed by accused No. 2 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 1/1995 was filed by accused No. 1. The accused No. 1 is the Advertising Agent and accused No. 2 is the manufacturer of the drug.
-
The respondent No. I had filed a complaint before the J.M.F.C., Panaji under Section 200 of Cr. P.C. alleging that certain advertisement appeared in the Navhind Times, English Daily, Panaji on 18th February, 1990 which contained objectionable advertisement punishable under Section 7(a) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act). The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint and issued process to the petitioners. On receipt of the process of the Court both the petitioners herein filed application before the learned Magistrate contending inter alia that the application is barred by limitation. They contended before the learned Magistrate that though the advertisement in question appeared on 18th February, 1990 the complaint was filed only on 21st February, 1991 which is three days beyond one year as prescribed under Section 468 of Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate rejected the objections finding that the complaint was within time. The learned Magistrate based his finding on the fact that though, if time computed from the date of advertisement is beyond three days, the actual time spent for finding out the actual identity and address of the persons if excluded the complaint was within time.
-
Against this order the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 272/94 filed a revision application under Section 397 of Cr. P.C. as Criminal Revision Application No. 18/94 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Panaji. The learned Sessions Judge also took the same view of the learned Magistrate and confined the order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed his revision application.
-
The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 272/94 approached this Court to challenge both the orders of the learned J.M.F.C. and the learned Sessions Judge under Section 482, Cr. P.C., whereas the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1/1995 has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 21st February, 1991. That is how these two revision applications have come up for consideration before this Court jointly.
-
At the time of issuing rule, this Court has restricted it only on the point of limitation in Crl. Misc. Application in 272. But at the time of issuing notice on rule in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1/95 this restriction was not imposed. Therefore the...
To continue reading
Request your trial