THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 of 2021
JUDGMENT:
1. The Drug Inspector of Kamareddy filed a complaint against respondent/accused for the offences under Section 18(c ) r/w Section 62 punishable under Section 27(b)(ii), Section 18-A punishable under Section 28, 22(1)(cca) punishable under Section 22(3), Rule 65(18) r/w Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27(d), Rule 65(3)(1) r/w Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section 27(d), Rule 65(4)(4)(i) r/w 18(a) (vi) punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act of 1940).
2. It is the case of the Drug Inspector/P.W.1 that on 22.02.2013, he received a complaint from the villagers of Bibipet where medical store (A2 was located. It was alleged that A1, who is the proprietor was indulging in sale of samples and spurious drugs. Accordingly, P.W.1 proceeded to the village along with P.Ws.3 and 5 to act as mediators. A1 was found selling drugs without issuing sale bills, without maintaining prescription register. Thereafter, Ex.P2 Inspection report was prepared and obtained signatures of A1 and other mediators.
2
3. Thereafter, having followed the procedure, complaint was filed. The prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 6. P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 are Drug Inspectors.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined witnesses and marking documents acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 had no authorization to conduct seizure or raid the premises. During the course of trial, it was admitted that though the witnesses stated that they were having written instructions for conducting raid, no such written instructions were filed. Further, neither P.W.1, P.W.2 had filed any notification showing that the witnesses were either having full additional charge as Drug Inspector or they had jurisdiction in the area to conduct raids.
5. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the following judgments:
i) M/s.Gaba Pharmaceuticals, Hyderabad and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2007(2) Crimes 358 (A.P) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
ii) Johnson & Johnson Ltd. H.p and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 457 T.S & A.P. High Court.
iii) M/s.Chennakesha Bandage & others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 219( A.P) 3
iv) State of Maharashtra v. R.A.Chandrawarkar & others reported in 1999 Crl.Law Journal 4449 (Bombay High Court).
6. During the course of trial, P.W.5, who was present admitted that he had instructions to conduct raid along with P.Ws.1 and 2. Though, he claimed that he was authorized, no such authorization was filed. P.Ws.1 and 2 do not have jurisdiction in the area of the accused to conduct raid. Under Section 22 of the Act of 1940, only the Inspector, who has been appointed for a particular area has the powers to inspect and take samples of the drugs and do all such necessary investigation. The Drug Inspector is appointed under Section 21. Under Section 21, the powers of the Inspector can be exercised and duties may be performed subject to prescription of such powers. Under Section 23, the procedure to be adopted by the Inspectors is mentioned. In the absence of the Drug Inspector being empowered to inspect and unless it is shown that the Drug Inspector conducting raid was empowered for that particular area, the question of conducting raid does not arise. I do not find any infirmity with the orders of the learned Sessions Judge. There are 4 no compelling reasons to reverse the well reasoned judgment of acquittal.
7. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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.1
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 5 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;
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. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.09.2023 kvs 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 OF 2021 Date: 26.09.2023 kvs