Vikas vs. State Of Rajasthan

\230! 1 ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.3 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4165/2010 (From the judgement and order dated 16/04/2010 in CRMBA No.984/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR) VIKAS Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for bail) Date: 15/06/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN (VACATION BENCH) For Petitioner(s) Mr. Puneet Jain,Adv. Ms. Pratibha Jain,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel appears for petitioner and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel appears for respondent. 2 Heard. Record perused. Petitioner feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 16.4.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High court of judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur, rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to him in connection with commission of alleged offences under Sections 415 and

420 of the IPC together with Section of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that in the light of the proviso appended to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also in the light of sub-section 2 of Section 19 of the Act, petitioner could have been charged and prosecuted for commission of the aforesaid offences as he had purchased the same from registered dealer against the bills raised by the manufacturer.

It was also brought to our notice that despite the order passed by learned Single Judge for early conclusion of the trial, the matter has not proceeded further and is still pending after filing of the 3 chargesheet before the learned trial court. Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice that petitioner is in jail for more than seven and half months.

From the impugned order we find that there does not appear to be even a whisper of the legal grounds which were sought to be raised before us.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though those grounds were raised before the learned single Judge but they do not find place in the impugned order. Unfortunately, the copy of the bail application said to have been filed before the learned Single Judge is not before us on the strength of which we could have verified whether any such ground was taken or not. Be that as it may, we do not find it a fit case to interfere with. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move afresh before the appropriate court for grant of regular bail in the light of the aforesaid legal grounds taken before us. On such an application being filed, an endeavour will be made by the learned trial court to consider and dispose of the same at an early date afresh without being influenced by any observation made by us.

The special leave petition stands disposed of.

(O.P. Sharma) (M.S. Negi)

4

Court Master Court Master