THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.715 of 2014 14-07-2014 BETWEEN:
The Drugs Inspector, Gudur, Nellore District, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…..Appellant AND D.V. Rao, Vice President & Unit Incharge, M/s.Krebs Biochemicals Limited,Nellore …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.715 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 26.05.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2011 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore, whereby the learned Sessions Judge set aside the Judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, in C.C.No.284 of 2004, dated 09.03.2011.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That on information on 23.05.2003, the complainant Drug Inspector, Gudur, along with other Drug Inspectors inspected the manufacturing premises of M/s.Krebs Biochemicals Limited, A.1 firm and on enquiry, A.3, Vice President (Manufacturing), failed to produce the production and distribution particulars of Ephedrine Hydrochloride I.P., and Pseudo Ephedrine Hydrochloride I.P., and an inspection report was prepared and subsequently on 27.05.2003, A.3 produced the required details to the complainant and on perusal, it is revealed that A.1 firm sold 450 kgs., of Ephedrine Hydrochloride I.P., to M/s.Essar Pharm Sale, Pondicherry, A.4. It is revealed that manufacturing drug licence was valid upto 31.12.2000 only. A.1 firm has sold different quantities of Ephedrine Hydrochloride I.P., to different firms, and the said sale transactions are also not genuine.
On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the pay orders in the above sale transactions were drawn from A.5’s account. After due procedure, a case was registered against A.1 to A.6 for the offences under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.30 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Ex.D.1.
The learned trial Judge, after perusing the record and appreciating the evidence, found A.1 guilty, and accordingly convicted and sentenced A.2, on behalf of A.1, as A.1 is the firm, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, A.2 to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of four months. The trial Court also found A.2 to A.6 guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
Aggrieved by the Judgment of the conviction by the trial Court, A.3 has preferred criminal appeal being Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2011 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court has allowed the said appeal by setting aside the conviction recorded by the trial Court as against A.3. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the material available on record.
It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2013 against the Judgment passed by the lower appellate Court acquitting A.1 and A.2 and the same is dismissed by this Court.
This Court perused the said Judgment.
The appellant herein, who is A.3, is an employee and is not directly concerned with the affairs of A.1 i.e. M/s. Krebs Biochemicals Limited and that he is in a better footing than that of A.1 and A.2.
The relevant portion of the Judgment passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2013 dated 27-11-2013 is extracted hereunder.
On perusing the entire material and appreciating the evidence on record, and also on hearing the submissions made by both sides, this Court is of the view that the lower appellate Court has rightly acquitted A.1 and A.2 by setting aside the Judgment of the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has rightly observed that in Ex.P.1, Inspection Report, it is not mentioned that A.1 firm has sold any drugs to the unlicensed dealers. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 23.05.2003, the date of inspection, the A.1 has no valid licence The lower appellate Court has rightly observed that as per the admission of P.W.1, Drug Inspector, in his evidence, it can be inferred that A.1 has valid licence as on the date of inspection. Further, it is the duty of the Drug Inspector to record the observations made at the time of inspection in Form No.35, Inspection Book.
P.W.1 in his evidence has admitted that the Inspection Book is very much available with A.1 firm. However, the prosecution has failed to show that the Drug Inspector, P.W.1, has recorded any observations in Form No.35 Inspection Book. Further, it is the allegation of the prosecution that Director, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad, has given show cause notice to the A.1 firm for violations of the licence. In this aspect also, the lower appellate Court has rightly observed that the show cause notice is dropped after satisfying with the explanation submitted by A.1 firm. Hence, this Court is of the view that A.1 and A.2 are entitled for acquittal of the charges levelled against them.
In view of the above, the lower appellate Court has rightly acquitted A.3. The Judgment of the lower appellate Court does not suffer from any perverse findings, and is in accordance with law and the same need not be interfered with. Hence, the Judgment of the lower appellate Court, in acquitting appellant/A.3 is hereby confirmed. The criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 14.07.2014 pln