Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs A. Sai Prasad on 29 November, 2023
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.998 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.02.2023 in S.C.No.12 of 2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Zaheerabad acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 32 and Section 18 (a) (vi) & 18 (c) r/w. Section 27(d) & 27 (b) (ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act-1940 (for short 'the Drugs Act').
2. Briefly, the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the Drug Inspectors is that the accused was running a medical shop in the name of M/s.Venkateshwara Medical and General Stores at Bhavani Mandir Road, Zaheerabad. He was found to be selling drugs without prescription of a Doctor. Further, sale invoices and other records were not maintained. Accordingly, the Drug Inspectors seized some of the drugs for the purpose of analysis. MOs.1 to 30 were seized from the medical shop.
3. After concluding their investigation, the Drug Inspectors filed the complaint in the Court. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.25 2 were marked. The material objects which are MOs.1 to 30 were seized and produced before the trial Court.
4. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the following grounds:-
(i) Both the panchas to the seizure turned hostile.
(ii) Drug Inspectors could not establish that the premises where the drugs were found was in exclusive possession of the accused or to whom they belonged to.
(iii) No bills that were obtained from M/s.Venkateshwara Medicals were filed.
(iv) Though the samples were sent for analysis, even before the receipt of such report, complaint was filed without knowing whether the drugs seized were in violation of any provisions of the Drugs Act.
(v) The Drug Inspectors did not verify who was running the medical shop and from where the drugs were seized. The Drug Inspectors further failed to connect the accused A.Sai Prasad with the medical shop where the drugs were seized.
(vi) The Drug Inspectors did not follow the procedure laid down under the Drugs Act for seizure, conducting raid and sampling.3
5. Having found that the Drug Inspectors utterly failed to follow any of the procedure prescribed under the Drugs Act, further the accused A.Sai Prasad could not be connected with the medical shop namely M/s.Venkateshwara Medical and General Stores where the drugs were seized, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found it fit to acquit the accused.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State would submit that the documents were marked during the trial and though the independent witnesses have turned hostile, there is no reason why the evidence of the Drug Inspectors cannot be taken into consideration to convict the accused. MOs.1 to 30, drugs were in fact seized and exhibited before the trial Court. In the said circumstances, conviction has to be reversed.
7. In cases of acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1 , held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 4 when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
8. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;2
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc.
vii)This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused."
9. The duty of the Drug Inspectors is to establish that the accused is in conscious and exclusive possession of the premises from where the drugs were seized. Further, due procedure has to be followed for sampling and sending them to the laboratory for the purpose of analysis. Violation of procedure under the Drugs Act for sampling would draw adverse inference against the case of the prosecution.
10. Though it is alleged that the accused was selling drugs without prescription of a Doctor, not a single witness is examined to show that drugs were being sold without prescription. Further, for samples seized, no payments or bills were taken from the premises.
11. In view of several discrepancies, this Court is not inclined to set aside the order of acquittal of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in S.C.No.12 of 2018, which is well reasoned.
6
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.11.2023 dv 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.998 of 2023 Dt. 29.11.2023 dv