Rajesh Singh vs State

,,,,,

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)",,,,,

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 331/2003 under Section 411 of the IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi.",,,,,

The allegations in the FIR are that an information was received that surgical supplies meant for Govt. Departments and hospitals were being stolen,,,,,

and diverted. A raid was conducted and at the premises of a co-accused, drug items and surgical supply items were recovered from the said person.",,,,,

It is alleged that the co-accused disclosed the name of the petitioner.,,,,,

The petitioner is alleged to have been apprehended on a public street i.e. Road No. 5, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi and the following goods were",,,,,

allegedly recovered from his possession:-,,,,,

1) One Box Containing 45 Nos. Venflon I.V. Cannula 20G/26/N 1.0 x32 mm 54 ml/min lot No. 3J0841 Mfg. 9/03, Ref. No. 391492 Manufactured by",,,,,

M/s. Becton Dickinson India (P) Ltd. The box is started with R.P. Centre supply not for sale marked (1).,,,,,

2) One Box Containing 42 Nos. Venflon I.V. Cannula 20G, 1.25 In, 1.0 x32 min 54 ml/min Lot No. 3J0841 Mfg. 9/03, Ref. No. 391492 Manufactured",,,,,

by M/s. Becton Dickinson India (P) Ltd. The box is started with R.P. Centre supply not for sale marked (2).,,,,,

3) One box of lister make sterile surgical blade containing 42 blades of batch No. 21EPDA of No.,,,,,

22 manufactured by M/s. Magna Marketing D-3, Ref. No. 3 Udyog Kang Site 5 Kanpur-22. The box is stamped AIIMS SUPPLY NOT FOR SALE.",,,,,

Marked (3),,,,,

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Firstly; there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the,,,,,

subject articles and secondly; there was nothing to show that the said articles were stolen property.,,,,,

It may be pertinent to note that the main co-accused i.e. Pradeep Kumar Bhargava from whose premises several drug articles were recovered had,,,,,

approached the Court for compounding of the said offence and FIR qua him was compounded and fine of Rs. 12,000/-was imposed.",,,,,

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is innocent and has been framed and there was no question of accepting the,,,,,

subject offence and approaching the trial court for compounding.,,,,,

It may be noticed that vide order dated 04.09.2015, the revisional court in a revision petition filed by the petitioner impugning order on charge dated",,,,,

29.06.2015 has held that the proceedings conducted by the trial court and the charge framed against the petitioner under Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940,,,,,

was illegal and against the mandate of Section 32 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 and accordingly charges framed under the Drugs & Cosmetics,,,,,

Act 1940 qua the petitioner were deleted. The petitioner has been charged only of the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC (i.e.,,,,,

dishonestly receiving stolen property).,,,,,

Since the allegations is that the petitioner was in receipt of the stolen property which was stolen from AIIMS, the office of Deputy Commissioner of",,,,,

Police on 11.12.2003 sent a communication to Medical Superintendent, AIIMs informing him that the above reported articles were recovered from the",,,,,

accused and specifically raised the following queries:-,,,,,

Whether the above item was received in your hospital for the official use.,,,,,

If yes, provide the details thereof. The name of the department where this item was issued for the use be also provided.",,,,,

Whether any police report regarding the theft or misappropriation was ever lodged by the authority. If yes, kindly provide the details.",,,,,

The identity of the person liable for the theft/misappropriation of the above article be also fixed.,,,,,

It may be noticed that an investigation was carried out by the AIIMS with regard to two articles which were alleged recovered from the possession,,,,,

of the petitioner and the conclusion with regard to “One box of lister make sterile surgical bladeâ€​ inter alia is as under:-,,,,,

“Observations,,,,,

• The item in question is Non Accountable, relatively inexpensive.",,,,,

• The pattern of use was commensurate with the quantity indented in all areas investigated.,,,,,

• At the time of issue of items on indent to user areas, in a hospital of this size, it is not possible to record the Batch No. of each and every item on",,,,,

the indent, book, thus making it impossible to trace the items of a particular batch number right upto the end user level.",,,,,

• The total quantity of BP Blades seized is 42 only. 100 packets, each containing 100 blades, i.e. a total of 10,000 Blades were received in this",,,,,

Hospital of the Batch No. in question. The cost of each blade amounts to Rs.1.28p. The total cost of the seized item belonging to this hospital would,,,,,

not exceed Rs.55/-.,,,,,

Conclusion,,,,,

There does not appear to be organized large-scale pilferage of the particular item from the Stores or User Area. From the available records, it is",,,,,

impossible to ascertain at this stage whether small quantities of the item (as reflected in the list forwarded by the crime branch) have been removed,,,,,

from any of these areas. In the light of the above, it is proposed to reply to the queries in the Crime Branch letter mentioned above thus:-",,,,,

a) The surgical item, forwarded by Crime Branch, viz., Batch No. 21 EPDA of Lister Make Sterile Surgical Blade No. 22 was received in the hospital",,,,,

for official use.,,,,,

b) Details of receipt of the items:-,,,,,

Sl. No.,"Item and Batch

No.",Quantity,"Date of Receipt

in Store",Challan No.,Supply Order No.

1.,"L i s t e r Make

Sterile Surgica

Blade No. 22 21

EPDA","1 0 , 0 0 0 (100

lPackets, each

packet containing

100 blades",24.06.03,Challan No. 3453,"Supply Order No.

710/H/SSK/03-

04 dated 13.06.03