THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.895 of 2012 06-11-2014 BETWEEN:
The Drugs Inspector, Proddatur, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh …..Appellant AND Nukala Srinivasu …..Respondent/Accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.895 of 2012 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 02.09.2009 passed in C.C. No.239 of 2006 by the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, whereby the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 28 read with 18A and Section 22(3) read with 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and accordingly sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Section 28 read with Section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) for the offence under Section 22(3) read with Section 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That on credible information that the accused is stocking and selling drugs without licence, P.Ws.1 and 3, the Drug Inspectors along with another Drug Inspector, and also along with P.W.2, private witness and another witness, inspected the shop of the accused and found various card board boxes containing various drugs with additional stamping as physician’s samples not to be sold. As the shop did not possess licence to deal with the drugs and the accused failed to inform the source of supply of drugs, the complainant seized the drugs under the cover of panchanama and also lifted samples. Thus, a case was registered against the accused for the offences under Section 27(b)(ii) read with Section 18(c), and Section 22(3) read with 22(1)(cca) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.Os.1 to 63 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
The learned trial Judge, after perusing the record and appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 27(b) (ii) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, the learned Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 28 read with 18A and 22(3) read with 22(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, and accordingly sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the State represented by the Drug Inspector has preferred the present appeal.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shabbir v State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC 564), wherein it is observed that the prosecution should prove affirmatively that the accused is intended to sell the drugs in the open market. Admittedly, the respondent is running general merchant stores and further it is the case of the respondent that the drugs were in his possession for supply to the poor persons at the time of conducting free medical camps. The said contention is also supported by P.W.1 that free medical camps are conducted by various organizations in that area. Hence, the learned Judge rightly acquitted the accused for the charge under Section 27(b)(ii) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Insofar as the offences under Sections 28 read with 18A and 22(3) read with 22(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is concerned, the learned trial Judge convicted accused with sentence of fine under each count. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/complainant has preferred the present appeal.
This Court is of the view that the learned trial Judge rightly observed that the drugs labeled as ‘physician’s sample not to be sold’ were in possession of the accused in his general store, which does not possess any valid licence to manufacture, stock or sell the drugs, and further, the accused failed to produce the bills for the said drugs and also failed to furnish the name, address and other particulars of the persons from whom the drugs are acquired. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well considered Judgment of the Court below and it does not suffer from any perverse findings and as such, 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 06.11.2014 pln