Madras High Court
Palani vs The Tamil Nadu State Represented ... on 6 September, 2021
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :06.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.413 of 2019
Palani ... Petitioner
Versus
The Tamil Nadu State Represented by
Drugs Inspector,
Pallipattu Range i/c
Office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control,
Tiruvallur Zone, No.201, J.N.Road,
1 Floor, Vishnu Complex,
Tiruvallur – 602 001. ... Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed by the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in C.A.No.210 of 2018 dated
16.04.2019 partly confirming the sentence passed in C.C.No.47 of 2017 dated
23.11.2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.P.Palanichamy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against order dated
16.04.2019 passed in C.A.No.210 of 2018 by the learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in and by which, the sentence passed in
C.C.No.47 of 2017 dated 23.11.2018 by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruvallur was confirmed.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2015 P.W.1/Drugs
Inspector and two others inspected the accused's clinic, in the presence of
Mrs.A.Anjali, who was working as a Nursing Assistant in the clinic and
found that certain allopathic drugs of about 29 items were stocked for
distribution/sale without any valid drug licence and hence, they seized the
drugs. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and
Mrs.A.Anjali. The petitioner has given a reply stating that the said Anjali was
only his employee and he has admitted the offences and sought for excuse,
but, he failed to disclose the name and address of the persons from whom the
drugs were acquired. Hence, a complaint has been registered against the
petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
3.The respondent police filed a complaint before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur against the petitioner and the same was taken
on file in C.C.No.47 of 2017. After completing the formalities, charges were
framed against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 18(c) r/w 27(b)
(ii) and 18(A) r/w 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act [hereafter 'D&C Act'
for the sake of convenience]
4.The trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side
and also considering the materials available on record found that the
accused/petitioner is guilty for the charged offences and convicted and
sentenced him as follows:-
(i) For the offence under Section 18(c), which is punishable under
Section 27(b)(ii) of D & C Act, the petitioner has to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
(ii) For the offence under Section 18(A), which is punishable under
Section 28 of D & C Act, the petitioner has to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and ordering the
sentences to be run concurrently.
5.Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the
petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.210 of 2018 before the learned
I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. After hearing the
arguments advanced on either side, the Lower Appellate Court partly allowed
the appeal by acquitting the petitioner for the offence under Section 18(c) r/w
27(b)(ii) of D & C Act and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed
by the trial Court with regard to the offence under Section 18(A) r/w 28 of D
& C Act. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner is before this Court by
way of Criminal Revision Case.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The
petitioner is not the owner of the shop and he has not violated the said Act.
Though the trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence
under Sections 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) and 18(A) r/w 28 of D & C Act,
subsequently, the lower Appellate Court acquitted the petitioner for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
offence under Section 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) of D & C Act and wrongly
convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 18(A) r/w 28 of
D & C. Hence, he prays to set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed by
the lower Appellate Court and instead fine amount may be imposed on the
petitioner.
7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent
would submit that during inspection, the respondent police found that the
petitioner sold the drugs without any valid licence . Hence, show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner and explanation was called for from the
petitioner, but, the petitioner had not given any explanation. Hence, the
complaint was preferred before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur and
after trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the charged offence.
He would further submit that as per Section 18(A) of D & C Act, the sentence
may be imposed up to two years, however, the learned Magistrate very
leniently imposed six months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of
Rs.20,000/-. Hence, there is no merit in this revision and the same is liable to
be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the
materials available on record.
9.Admittedly, the respondent police filed the complaint against the
petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvallur and the
same was taken on file in C.C.No.47 of 2017 and charges were framed
against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 18(c) r/w 27(b)(ii) and
18(A) r/w 28 of D & C Act. In order to prove the case of the prosecution
before the trial Court as many as six witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to
P.W.6 and 12 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and one material
object was marked as M.O.1. On the side of the defence, no oral and
documentary evidence were produced. After trial, the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced as stated above. Challenging the same, the petitioner
preferred the appeal and he was acquitted for the offence under Section 18(c)
r/w 27(b)(ii) of D & C Act.
10.The defence taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the respondent has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
further defence that though the lower Appellate Court accepted the contention
raised by the petitioner and acquitted him for the offence under Section 18(c)
r/w 27(b)(ii) of D & C Act, wrongly convicted and sentenced him for the
offence under Section 18(A) r/w 28 of D & C Act.
11.It is seen from the records that P.W.1 in her evidence has clearly
deposed that during inspection, they found that the petitioner was running a
pharmacy and sold the drugs without any valid licence. Hence, show cause
notice was issued, but, in the reply the petitioner has failed to disclose the
name and address of the persons from whom the drugs were acquired and
hence, they filed the complaint against the petitioner. Though the trial Court
convicted and sentenced the petitioner for two charged offences, the Lower
Appellate Court acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 18(c)
r/w 27(b)(ii) of D & C Act. Challenging the said judgment, the State has not
filed any appeal, however, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal
Revision Case. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution
proved the allegations levelled against the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
12.The scope of revision is very limited. The Trial Court and the
Appellate Court had already appreciated the entire evidence and also given
the findings. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot
sit in the arm chair of the Appellate Court and reappreciate the evidences.
Therefore, this Court has to see only as to whether there is any perversity in
the appreciation of evidence in the judgment of the Courts below.
13. On a combined reading of the entire materials and the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity in the
judgment of lower Appellate Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
14.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court
may set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner for the
offence under Section 18(A) of D & C Act and instead fine amount may be
imposed on the petitioner. However, considering the facts and circumstances,
this Court finds that the petitioner without having any valid licence run the
Pharmacy and sold the medicine and he does not disclose the name of the
manufacturers and not given any proper explanation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
15.Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the findings of the lower Appellate Court and there is no merit
in this Criminal Revision Case. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is
dismissed.
06.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
ms
To
1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruvallur.
2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruvallur.
3.The Drugs Inspector,
Pallipattu Range i/c
Office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control,
Tiruvallur Zone, No.201, J.N.Road,
1 Floor, Vishnu Complex,
Tiruvallur – 602 001
Tamil Nadu State.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
ms
Crl.R.C.No.413 of 2019
06.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
