HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2111 OF 2006 Dated 17-6-2014 Between:
Suddala Venkata Rajaveeru.
Petitioner.
And:
The States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2111 OF 2006 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 5-12-2006 in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2003 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal whereunder judgment dated 15-5-2003 in C.C.No.187 of 2002 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parkal is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Inspector, Drugs and Cosmetics, Warangal Rural filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 12-6-2002, he inspected the premises of M/s.Padmavathi Medical and General Stores bearing Door No.1-06 of Chityala village belonging to the accused and found huge stocks of drugs kept in the said premises without any drug license and thereby, he contravened provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On these allegations, three witnesses are examined and eight documents are marked on behalf of prosecution. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is marked. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 27 (b) (ii) and Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and sentenced him to suffer six months imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/-. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, accused preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Warangal on a reappraisal of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for petitioner submitted that both the courts erred in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He submitted that trial court failed to notice that the alleged drugs seized from the premises of the petitioner were not meant for sale. He further submitted that these drugs are not sent for chemical analysis to ascertain whether the seized material is a drug, as defined under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He further submitted that Drugs Inspector failed to serve any memo on the petitioner before conducting search. He further submitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 who are material and independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and both the courts simply relying on the evidence of Drugs Inspector-P.W.1, convicted the revision petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the courts rightly appreciated evidence on record and there are no grounds to interfere with concurrent findings of both courts.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether the judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
POINT:
According to prosecution, on 12-6-2002, P.W.1 inspected premises of M/s.Padmavathi Medical and General Stores bearing Door No.1-06 of Chityala village and found, the accused without any valid licence stocked drugs for sale and on that, he seized the drugs and issued form 16 notice and recorded panchanama. Drug Inspector is examined as P.W.1 and panchayatdars are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3. Form 16 served on accused is marked as Ex.P.1 and panchanama is marked as Ex.P.2.
The main contention of the revision petitioner is that both the independent witnesses have not supported prosecution case and relying on the interested testimony of P.W.1, convicting the accused is not at all tenable. The very same objection is raised before the trial court contending that the witness is interested witness and being the person involved in the detection of offence and part of investigating agency, his evidence cannot be believed. Learned trial judge considering the suggestions put to P.W.1 during cross examination and certain admitted facts held that evidence of P.W.1 cannot be brushed aside on the ground of interestedness as there is no special motive for this witness to implicate the revision petitioner. Admittedly, at the time of seizure, drug licence for the shop of the accused was not in force and huge stock was noticed in the shop of the accused. There are no contradictions or omissions in the evidence of P.W.1 and he supported inspection and seizure on 12-6-2002. Both trial court and appellate court have meticulously examined evidence of P.W.1 with reference to objection raised on behalf of the accused.
I do not find any wrong appreciation or any perversity in the judgments of the courts below while appreciating evidence of prosecution witnesses. All the points now urged on behalf of the petitioner were raised before the trial court and the appellate court and both courts have dealt with these objections with reference to the evidence on record and rightly discarded them.
On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both courts have not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record and there are no incorrect findings in the judgments of the courts below.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below with regard to conviction recorded against the petitioner.
Now coming to the sentence part, advocate for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not renewed his licence at the time of inspection. He further submitted that at no point of time, he is involved in any case previously and that accused is in jail for about 14 days and he paid the fine amount. He further submitted that he has to look after his totally disabled daughter and the petitioner himself is a handicapped and he is not involved in any other cases either prior to this case or subsequent to conviction. He submitted that petitioner suffered mental agony all these 15 years due to this case, therefore, period already undergone may be treated as punishment.
To support his argument, he placed reliance on a judgment of this court in D.NAGA KRISHNA v. STATE OF
[1]
A.P. (
) in which it is observed as follows:
“The residual question is only with regard to the sentence. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged offence took place on 4- 9-1998 i.e., nearly 8 years ago, this Court is of the view that the sentence of simple imprisonment can be reduced by invoking the provision under Section 27 of the Act. Considering the long passage of time, the nature of accusation and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of about 15 days as under-trial prisoner immediately after the pronouncement of judgment in appeal, this court is of the view that the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year is reduced to the period of sentence which the petitioner has already undergone, but the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower appellate Court shall be maintained.”
He also relied on a decision of Supreme Court in
“BHARAT PRASAD GUPTA v. STATE OF WEST
[2]
BENGAL” ( ) wherein it is held as follows:
“Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Section 27 –
Sentence – Accused, an Ayurvedic practitioner convicted for the offence of sale and storage of Allopathic medicines without a licence – Two decades spent in the proceedings – Accused not found to have since indulged in any similar activity – Medicines found in his possession not in large quantity – Sentence reduced to the period already undergone.”
The facts of the above referred cases are similar to the case on hand, therefore, I am of the view that request of advocate for petitioner with regard to sentence can be considered.
For these reasons, considering the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court and this court referred above, period already undergone is treated as punishment besides the fine amount already paid.
With the above modification in respect of sentence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 17-6-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2111 OF 2006 Dated 17-6-2014
[1] 2007 (2) ALT (Crl.)54 (A.P.)
[2] 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.) 763 (S.C.)