Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Narendra Kumar vs State Of U P Through Inspector Of Drugs

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 September, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 737 of 1998 Revisionist :- Narendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Inspector Of Drugs Counsel for Revisionist :- Prateek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for revisionist and learned AGA appearing for State- respondent.
2. This Criminal Revision has arisen from judgment and order dated 25.04.1998 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 647 of 1996, whereby he has allowed Revision filed by opposite party, set aside judgment and order dated 28.09.1996 passed by Sri Ishwar Dayal, IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrtate in Criminal Case No. 2909 of 1995 under Section 18/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1940") and has directed Magistrate to examine the matter afresh and commit it for trial to Session Court.
3. Facts in brief are that M/s. Super Standard Chemical Manufacturing Company, Durga Manson, Agra Road, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as "Manufacturing Company") a manufacturing company, is engaged in manufacture of medicines. On 27.03.1991, Drug Inspector made an inspection and collected sample of Ginger Tincture IPB No.2085. In the chemical examination it was found substandard, hence Drug Controller, U.P. Lucknow sanctioned prosecution and Drug Inspector lodged a complaint in the Court of Magistrate on 29.10.1993 under Section 18(i) (a) (vi) (b) of Act 1940 read with Section 27 thereof. Accused did not appear in the Court below initially on 28.09.1996. An application was submitted admitting guilt and requesting the Court to pass appropriate order of punishment. Magistrate recorded statement of accused on 28.09.1996 in which accused admitted guilt and thereupon Magistrate held accused guilty of offence under Section 18(i) (a) (vi) (b) of Act 1940 read with Section 27 thereof and sentenced imprisonment till rising of court and fine of Rs.200/-, each. On failure to deposit fine, two months' rigorous imprisonment was awarded.
4. Drug Inspector concerned i.e. complainant, filed Criminal Revision alleging that under Section 27 of Act 1940 maximum punishment is life imprisonment, hence Magistrate has no jurisdiction to hear and award punishment, hence order of punishment awarded by Magistrate is without jurisdiction. Upholding the above submission Revisional Court has set aside the order of Magistrate and directed to commit matter to Session for trial.
5. It is contended that Section 27 (a), (b) and (c) of Act 1940 are not attracted for violation of Section 18 of Act 1940 and in the present case, it is Section 27 (d) which is applicable. The incident in question is of 1991 and prosecution was initiated in 1995. At the time when sample was taken by Drug Inspector and even at the time when complaint was filed before Magistrate, Section 27(d) of Act 1940 stood as under:
"27 (d) any drug other than a drug referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), in contravention of any other provision of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to two yeas and with fine which shall not be less than twenty thousand rupees.”
6. It is contended that maximum punishment under Section 27(d) of Act 1940 was two years and, therefore, the reason assigned by Revisional Court while interfering with order passed by Magistrate that punishment of life imprisonment was provided under Section 27 is patently illegal inasmuch as Section 27 has to be read with Section 18 and violation of Section 18 of Act 1940 was covered by Section 27(d) and not the other provisions of Section 27 of Act 1940.
7. I find substance in submission. Section 27(d) of Act 1940 is applicable in the present case and maximum punishment provided therein is two years imprisonment, hence, Magistrate was competent to pass order of punishment.
8. In the result, Revision is allowed and impugned order dated 25.04.1998 passed by Revisional Court is hereby set aside.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Ashish Pd./AK
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Narendra Kumar vs State Of U P Through Inspector Of Drugs

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 September, 2019
Judges
  • Sudhir Agarwal
Advocates
  • Prateek Kumar