Amar Saran and S.C.Nigam, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Shri K. D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing of the first information report lodged at Case Crime No. 981 of 2008, under Sections 274/275/276/419/420/41/ 411, I.P.C. ; Sections 103/104 of Trade Marks Act and Sections 18/27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, police station Kotwali, Padrauna, district Kushi Nagar. The allegations in this case are extremely grave and reflect the cancer of illicit manufacture and sale of illegal/spurious drugs and medicines, which has become all pervasive in our society and has become a cause of grave threat to the health of so many innocent patients and purchasers of medicines who are not only dishonestly deprived of their funds, but also often lose the life of a dear one who is administered these fake drugs. The allegations in the F.I.R. were that on 13.8.2008, S.I. Mathura Rai, received information that the petitioner, resident of Gopalganj, Bihar had taken a room in the house of Chauthi near Belwa Chungi, in Kasba Padrauna, for dealing in spurious or sub-standard drugs and medicines and had collected a huge stockpile of such medicines. On that information after apprising the S. P. and obtaining orders from the Chief Medical Officer, Kushi Nagar,, S.I. Mathura Rai alongwith other police personnel accompanied by Shri Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, Drug Inspector of the concerned district, raided the said premises. The landlord Chauthi was present, but the petitioner is said to have run away. Chauthi stated that he had given the said room on rent to Brahmaji, the petitioner and one of the keys was in the petitioner's possession. When the room was got opened, a large quantity of apparently spurious drugs and samples of medicines were found in the said room, which were to the tune of over Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs). No licence for keeping the said drugs and medicines was produced by Chauthi and even the petitioner had no licence for dealing in the said drugs.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was never a tenant of the said house nor did he have the keys of the room. We are not concerned with such bald statements made in the writ petition pertaining to the defence of a case, which can be raised by him at the appropriate stage. We also find no reason why the co-accused would involve the petitioner in the offence if he had nothing to do with the drugs.;