Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Mr. Nyamatabad Chandra Shekar on 16 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.446 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:
1. The appeal is preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of the respondent/accused in C.C.No.71 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpally, for the offences under Sections 18 (c), 18(A), 22 (1) [cca] of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is punishable under Section 27(b) & 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-complainant, learned counsel for the respondent/accused and perused the entire material on record.
3. The allegation is that the complainant, who was examined as PW.1, along with PWs.2 and 3, who are independent witnesses, and other department personnel 2 went to the premises of M/s Bhavani Medical and General Stores, D.No.1-10-27/1, near Sangam Hospital, Metpally village and mandal of Jagtial District. There, the accused was found conducting business. PW.1 asked him to produce the drug license, however, he failed to do so. In the said premises, 45 varieties of drugs which were marked as MO.1, were seized. Notice was served under proper acknowledgment to the accused under Section 18- A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to disclose source of drugs. Thereafter, the drugs were deposited before the concerned Court. It is further the case that the accused had admitted that he was running business without valid license. Accordingly, after obtaining permission, complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector.
4. Learned Magistrate examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. During the course of trial, MO.1/ the varieties of drugs whose description is given in the Ex.P7, was marked.
3
5. Learned Magistrate, having considered the evidence found that:
1. Though the premises from where the drugs were seized was a busy commercial place, no independent witnesses from the nearby premises were taken.
2. PWs.2 and 3, who were taken by PW.1 to act as witnesses to the seizure, have turned hostile.
3. No documentary evidence was collected by PW.1 to show that the shop from where the drugs were seized stands in the name of the accused.
4. Photographs of the medical shop of the accused were also not filed to show that he was running shop.
5. The Drug Inspector/PW.1, who raided the premises, admitted in cross examination that there is no specific written order from his superior officer as PWs.5 and 6 accompanied him 4 for inspection of the above shop. Though PWs.5 and 6 accompanied PW.1 to the shop, their evidence was not convincing.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason why the responsible public officials, who are the drug inspectors, would file the false complaint against the accused. The seizure can be considered even in the absence of support by the independent prosecution witnesses PWs.2 and 3.
6. 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 when evidence on record has been analyzed. 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. 1 (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536 5
7. 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;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material 2 (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450 6 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."
8. As seen from the record, the accused denied seizure and also that he was running the shop. It is the bounden duty of the Drug Inspector to provide proof of exclusive possession of the premises of the accused to show that the drugs were seized from his possession and the place where the drugs were seized, accused was either the owner or the lease holder. In the absence of any such proof of exclusive possession of the premises, the question of convicting the accused does not arise. The reasons given by the learned Magistrate are convincing. There are no compelling circumstances for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal. 7
9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fails and is hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 16.10.2024 mmr