Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam tried the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 33EEC read with Section 33-I of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, “the Act”) and awarded imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by that, the revision petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. In the appeal, the conviction was confirmed. 1st accused in the case is now before this Court challenging the appellate judgment.
2. Heard Shri Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt.Madhu Ben, learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the courts below did not appreciate the evidence correctly and thereby miscarriage of justice has happened. According to him, the revision petitioner is a reputed ayurveda physician conducting Nedumpurath Pharmacy. It is not in dispute that he is a licensed manufacturer of some ayurvedic medicines. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the prosecution case that the revision petitioner manufactured 'kaivalyachoornam' and sold it without a drug license has not been established. Section 33EEC of the Act prohibits the manufacture for sale of ayurvedic, siddha and unani drugs. It reads as follows:
“ Prohibition of manufacture and sale of certain Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs.-From such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, no person, either by himself or by any other person on his behalf, shall -
(a) manufacture for sale or for distribution -
(i) any misbranded, adulterated or spurious Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug;
(ii) any patent or proprietary medicine, unless there is displayed in the prescribed manner on the label or container thereof the true list of all the ingredients contained in it; and
(iii) any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug in contravention of any of the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder;
(b) sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug which has been manufactured in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act, or any rule made thereunder;
(c) manufacture for sale or for distribution, any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug, except under, and in accordance with the conditions of, a licence issued for such purpose under this Chapter by the prescribed authority :
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to Vaidyas and Hakims who manufacture Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug for the use of their own patients :
Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the manufacture, subject to the prescribed conditions, of small quantities of any Ayurvedic, Siddha or Unani drug for the purpose of examination, test or analysis.”
The first proviso to the Section shows that the Section does not apply to vaidyas who manufacturs ayurvedic or siddha drugs for the use of their own patients. According to the learned counsel, the revision petitioner was running a clinic in the next room, wherein Gomathy Medicals, belonging to the 2nd accused, was functioning. In the clinic, the revision petitioner used to consult patients. The two packets of kaivalyachoornam recovered by PW4 from the consultation room of the revision petitioner were kept for treating his patients. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner is a qualified ayurveda practitioner. Going by the first proviso to Section 33EEC of the Act, it can be seen that the revision petitioner could administer medicines to his patients without a drug license. Nevertheless, the contention raised by the learned Prosecutor is that the revision petitioner was actually selling kaivalyachoornam, an unlicensed drug, through the medical shop run by the 2nd accused.
4. It is to be borne-in-mind that in revisional jurisdiction what is to be decided is the legality, correctness and propriety of the sentence or order. I have gone through the oral evidence of material witnesses and the documents produced by the prosecution. Regarding the authority of PWs 1 and 4 to detect an offence, there is no dispute. What is disputed is the correctness of Ext.P11 bill, whereby it is alleged by the prosecution that bulk quantity of kaivalyachoornam was sold by the revision petitioner to the 2nd accused for the purpose of selling the same through the medical shop run by her. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that Ext.P11 does not show the signature of the revision petitioner. That apart, Exts.D1 to D4 bill books maintained by the Nedumpurath Pharmacy, produced before the first appellate court, would show that bill No.103 is relating to kaivalyathailam, which is admittedly a licensed drug manufactured by the revision petitioner. These documents were not produced at the time of trial. By invoking power under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “Cr.P.C.”), these documents were produced before the first appellate court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered these documents and repelled the contention of the revision petitioner that Ext.P11 was a concocted document. The reasons stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the revision petitioner, being a qualified ayurveda physician, is presumed to know the implication of manufacturing drugs without obtaining a license and it would be idle to think that he should have signed on the bill evidencing sale of unlicensed drugs are proper and probable. The defence has no case that the bill books are serially numbered and only one bill book contained the bill No.103. In otherwords, there is no defence case even before the lower appellate court that Ext.P11 bill bearing No.103 is part only of one bill book. It can be seen from a perusal of Exts.D1 to D4 that many bill books contain bill No.103. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that Ext.P11 is a concocted cannot be believed.
5. It is to be noted that both the accused contested the case together. When the 2nd accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. she deposed that she used to sell kaivalyachoornam only when the revision petitioner/1st accused was visiting his clinic for consultation of patients. This fortifies the prosecution case. It is settled law that answers given by an accused at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are also materials which can be relied on. On going through the entire evidence, I find no reason to hold that the conviction by the courts below were illegal or improper. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the conviction.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner is a reputed ayurveda physician and he has won many awards for his professional skill. It is also submitted that in the revision filed by the 2nd accused before this Court, her sentence has been modified till the rising of the court in addition to fine. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I find that the sentence can be suitably modified.
In the result, revision petition is partly allowed. Conviction of the revision petitioner for the aforementioned offence is hereby confirmed. Revision petitioner shall undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and he shall pay a fine of `2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) under Section 33-I of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court on or before 08.12.2014 for suffering the sentence.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks