ADITYA NATH MITTAL, J. - (1.) LIST has been revised. None present for the revisionists.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Ballia in S.T. No.105 of 2009 (State v. Ajai Gupta and others), by which the application under section 227 Cr. P.C. has been rejected. The grounds taken in the revision are that the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The Trial Court has completely mis-read and mis-interpreted the materials on record. The medicines recovered from the possession of the revisionists were found to be of standard quality yet the Court below has not considered this fact and no offence under section 274, 275 and 276 I.P.C. is made out. There is no material and evidence on record regarding any offence punishable under sections 419, 420 and 411 I.P.C. or section 18 punishable under section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Merely on the allegation that some of the drugs recovered from the house of the applicants are in the nature of intoxicants, the offence under section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is also not made out. The order of the Trial Court is purely cryptic, erroneous and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
(3.) HEARD learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned order. The revisionists had submitted the application 25-Kha before the Trial Court with the prayer to discharge them as no offence against them was made out. It is alleged that adulterated and intoxicated drugs in 24 bags were recovered from the possession of the revisionists and after investigation, the charge- sheet for the offences punishable under sections 274, 275, 276, 419, 420 and 411, IPC and 18/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act was submitted. Upon hearing the A.D.G.C. (Criminal) and Counsel for the accused persons, the Court has come to the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons to frame the charges for the aforesaid offences.;