HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 619 OF 2004 DATED 28th JUNE, 2010.
BETWEEN M/s. Novastat Pharma Ltd., Warangal, Repl by its Director A Longa Reddy and anr …..Petitioners/Accused and The State of AP, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor and anr …Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 619 OF 2004
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 29.3.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2003 by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Nizamabad, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioners/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 27 (d) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, in the order dated 4.3.2003 in C.C.No. 104 of 2002 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), kamareddy.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that A-
1 is M/s Novastat Pharma Limited situate at Warangal, represented by its Managing Director Mr.A.Linga Reddy, who is the second accused herein. The Drugs Inspector, Kamareddy, filed a complaint before the trial Court against both the accused for the contravention of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is punishable under Section 27(d) of the said act for the manufacture of Myolax tablets bearing batch No. 2 MT-14 as the same have been found to be below standard quality as per the Government Analyst report.
The trial Court on a full-fledged trial, after appreciation of the evidence on record, and after hearing both sides found the accused guilty for the contravention of Section 18(a)(i) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and accordingly convicted and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for a period of one month.
On appeal being Criminal Appeal. No. 24 of 2003 preferred by the petitioners/accused, the lower Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. Hence this revision.
It is needles to state that the powers of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. are truncated and unless the finding recorded by the Court below is shown to be perverse or incorrect or illegal or not based on any evidence on record, the judgment under challenge needs interference. In the present case, on a perusal of the evidence available on record and on hearing the learned Counsel appearing on either side, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below so as to interfere with the same.
However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners confining his argument to the inflicting of the sentence, submitted that even though there is minimum punishment prescribed in the provisions of the Act, the Courts below ought to have imposed lesser punishment; that petitioners have suffered a stigma of conviction in the society; that the entire incident took place in the year 2000 and after lapse of eleven years, if the second petitioner is sent to judicial custody, the same may cause prejudice to him. Further it is submitted that the evidence discloses that after the examination of the said medicine by the analyst and receipt of the report thereon pointing out lesser quality, the second petitioner/accused had written letters to all the concerned about the tablets manufactured by them intimating the same and for its return and the same had been intimated to the complainant herein. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the first petitioner/A.1 being a company, the Court can impose the sentence of fine on a company as the sentence of imprisonment is impossible to be carried out. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted that considering all these, the petitioners can be shown some lenience insofar as the sentence ordered by the Court below is concerned.
As there is no serious objection from the side of the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record, and submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, thought it fit to show some lenience on the petitioners. Considering the same, the conviction recorded by the Courts below is confirmed, however, sentence recorded against the petitioners/accused is set aside and in its place, this Court directs the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs.9,000/- each apart from the fine amount already imposed by the Courts below, within a period of four weeks from the date of copy of this order is made ready.
Subject to the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO DATED 28th JUNE, 2010.
Msnr.