SHIKHIL KATOCH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
LAWS(HPH)-2020-11-56
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on
November 23,2020
Shikhil Katoch
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY BEHRAMJI MERWANJI DAMANIA VS. L R MELWANI :L R MELWANI [REFERRED TO]SURINDER MOHAN VIKAL VS. ASCHARAJ LAL CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SARWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVAS GOPAL VS. UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH NOW STATE [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEV RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SHARADCHANDRAVINAYAK DONGRE [REFERRED TO]
ARUN VYAS VS. ANITA VYAS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. TARA DUTT [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
P P UNNIKRISHNAN VS. PUTTIYOTTIL ALIKUTTY [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT DAMODAR KALE VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ZANDU PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD VS. SHARAFUL HAQUE [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
JAPANI SAHOO VS. CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH S SALASKAR VS. JAYPRAKASH M SHAH [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAN KUMAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [REFERRED TO]
NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION VS. NOIDA [REFERRED TO]
UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI VS. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SARAH MATHEW VS. INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES BY ITS DIRECTOR K.M.CHERIAN [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. -
(1.)Petitioner, alongwith two others, is an accused in Criminal Case bearing registration No.14 of 2018, titled as State v. Prashant Prabhakar, plending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Una, in case FIR No.304/2016, dated 16.11.2016, registered in Police Station Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, under Sections 21 & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as 'NDPS Act').
(2.)Present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 4.6.2018, passed by Judicial Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for commission of offence referred supra. Challenge to impugned order has been laid on the ground that the prosecution launched against the petitioner and other accused is time barred.
(3.)According to the prosecution case, accused persons were apprehended, on 16.11.2016, for having conscious and exclusive possession of 2.80g + 1.80g = 4.60g heroin and FIR was also registered on the same day.
;
(2.)Present petition has been preferred against impugned order dated 4.6.2018, passed by Judicial Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for commission of offence referred supra. Challenge to impugned order has been laid on the ground that the prosecution launched against the petitioner and other accused is time barred.
(3.)According to the prosecution case, accused persons were apprehended, on 16.11.2016, for having conscious and exclusive possession of 2.80g + 1.80g = 4.60g heroin and FIR was also registered on the same day.
;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.