L.N.MITTAL,J. - (1.) COMPLAINANT ­ Jagdish Kumar has filed this revision petition assailing order dated 23.8.2010 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Barnala thereby discharging respondents No.1 to 4/ accused in criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner against them for various offences.
(2.) IT is undisputed that respondents No.1 to 4 as police officials raided the chemist shop of the complainant and seized certain drugs, liquid and powder and registered FIR No.207 dated 17.7.2004 in Police Station Kotwali, Barnala under Section 188 IPC and Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, 'the Act'). After completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Cr.P.C.') was presented in the case. The petitioner, who was accused in the case, moved application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C for his discharge. The said application was allowed vide order dated 28.1.2005 regarding offence under Section 22 of the Act and liberty was given to the prosecution to launch the proceedings under Section 188 IPC (apparently by way of criminal complaint as provided by Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C). After discharge in the said case, the petitioner filed this criminal complaint alleging that his arrest in the aforesaid case was mala fide and with oblique motive because the police officials demanded bribe from him and on his refusal, he was arrested in the aforesaid case and he had to remain in custody in that case for 33 days. It was also alleged that two other shops had also been raided on different dates but in their cases, FIRs were registered under Section 188 IPC only and not under Section 22 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner instituted criminal complaint for prosecution of respondents No.1 to 4 under Section 58 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and under Sections 344, 347, 467, 468, 471 and 500 read with Section 34 IPC. After recording of preliminary evidence, respondents No.1 to 4 were summoned as accused for offences under Section 58 of the Act and under Sections 344 and 500 read with Section 34 IPC.
(3.) PRE -charge evidence of the petitioner ­ complainant was recorded. Thereafter, learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.8.2010 has discharged the accused. Feeling aggrieved, complainant has filed this revision petition impugning the said order. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.;