Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P.,Rep By Pp., High Court, ... vs M/S. Besto Plast, Madhya Pradesh, And ... on 19 December, 2023
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Appellant/State and the learned counsel for the respondents/accused.
2. The accused were charged with the offence under Section 18(a) (i) r/w 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under Section 27(d) of said Act, alleging that they, being the manufacturers and sellers of Vitamin 'A' and 'D' capsules, have manufactured the said drugs with sub-standard quality.
3. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charges levelled against them.
4. It is the submission of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of PW.2/Drug Inspector in correct perspective and it also ought to have scrutinized the documents marked in support of the Prosecution case. It is also submitted that inspite of sufficient evidence against the accused, the trial Court has erroneously acquitted them. Hence, he prayed to allow this appeal and convict the accused.
2 JS, J Crl.A.No.526 of 2012
5. The learned counsel for respondents/accused on the other hand, contended that the trial Court, in its judgment, has recorded a finding that the Drug Inspector who conducted the entire process of collecting the sample and sending it for analysis, was not examined before the Court and there was much time gap in sending the second sample for analysis. The trial Court has further recorded a finding that the Prosecution has failed to mark the laboratory analysis reports, and ultimately, on coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, has rightly acquitted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the main ground for acquittal of accused is non-examination of the Drug Inspector who initiated the entire process. The said Drug Inspector, though was shown as a witness, could not be examined by the Prosecution as he was out of Country at relevant point of time. In his place, the Prosecution has examined the subsequent Drug Inspector, who has merely identified the signatures of the earlier Drug Inspector on all the relevant documents. It is to be noted that this Drug Inspector who has been examined before the Court has not 3 JS, J Crl.A.No.526 of 2012 even accompanied the earlier Drug Inspector while collecting the samples. Therefore, she could not depose anything about the process that has been followed by the earlier Officer while collecting the samples. Further, after the first sample was sent for Government laboratory for analysis and after receipt of the report thereof, on the request of accused persons, the second sample was sent for analysis after ten months of receiving the first report, which is not permissible.
7. Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prescribes the procedure to be followed while collecting the samples, preserving them and sending the same to the laboratory for analysis. This forms crucial part of the entire investigation. Until and unless the Court is satisfied that the procedure contemplated under the Act is scrupulously followed by the Officer concerned, it is not safe to convict the accused. Since the vital witness for the Prosecution i.e. the then Drug Inspector who undertook the entire process could not be examined, the accused has lost the opportunity of defending his case by cross-examining him. This non-examination of the Officer concerned is fatal to the case of the Prosecution, and hence, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.
4 JS, J Crl.A.No.526 of 2012
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date:19.12.2023 Ksk