The Drugs Inspector vs Dande Thirumala Rao And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2438 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2438 Tel
Judgement Date : 8 June, 2022

Telangana High Court

The Drugs Inspector vs Dande Thirumala Rao And 4 Others on 8 June, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 89 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents 1 to

5/Accused Nos.1 to 5 recorded vide judgment dated

12.06.2019 in C.C.No.410 of 2015 on the file of the I

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, the present

appeal is filed.

2. The 1st respondent/Accused No.1 was charged for the

offences punishable under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs &

Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') and respondents 2 to

5/Accused Nos.2 to 5 were charged for the offences

punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1-B.Lakshmi

Narayana assisted by P.Ws.2 and 3 inspected the premises of

the 1st respodndent/A1 and found 32 varieties of drugs. The

1st respondent/A1 failed to produce any drug licence for

stocking the said 32 varieties of drugs and no purchase bills

or any record was found regarding the drugs found. In the

said circumstances, P.W.1 seized the said drugs in the

presence of panch witnesses. The said samples of drugs were

sent to the Government Analyst, Drug Control Lab,

Hyderabad. However, it was found that the drugs were of

standard quality. P.W.1 also searched the premises of

respondents 2 to 5/Accused Nos.2 to 5 and after 1st

respondent/A1 informed P.W.1 that the drugs found were

purchased from Accused Nos.2 to 5. However, no bills were

produced regarding the seized drugs by A1 or A2 to A5. For

the said reason, a private complaint was filed by P.W.1

alleging offences under Section 18(c) of the Act and Section

27(b)(ii) of the Act. Further, A1 has violated Rule 65(4) and

65(9)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and

punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.

4. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 and 2, Inspectors,

P.W.3 panch for seizure of the drugs from the premises of A1.

During the course of trial, Exs.P1 to P24 were marked and

also seized drugs as MOs 1 to 23.

5. The trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the

ground that the details of the seized drugs were not mentioned

in the panchanama Ex.P4 and further does not specify

whether the drugs were found in the premises belonging to the

1st respondent/A1. Further, the drugs were also found to be of

the standard quality.

6. The learned Magistrate also found that P.W.3, who is the

mediator in whose presence drugs were allegedly seized stated

that he does not know the details of the medicines mentioned

in Form-16 and he does not know about the drugs being

seized from the 1st respondent/A1, for which reason, the

learned Magistrate found that the execution of Ex. P4,

panchanama and Exs.P3, 5 and 6 being Forms 16, 17-A and

17 are doubtful.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that since

drugs were found in possession of the respondent No.1/A1, it

is for the A1to discharge his burden to disprove the case of the

prosecution and further when A1 informed that the drugs were

purchased from A2 to A5, their involvement also is apparent

and they are liable to be convicted for the charges leveled

against them.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also in the case of

Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 held that under

the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two

fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or

investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved

guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and

investigation. Both these facets attain even greater

significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in

his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption

of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even

indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be

established on record of the Court.

9. In Guru Dutt Pathak's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as follows:

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116

"15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , this Court reiterated the legal position as under : (SCC p. 432, para

42)

'42. ... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.'"

10. It is for the prosecution to explain as to why the details of

the medicines are not mentioned in the panchanama Ex.P4

and P.W.3, an independent witness has pleaded ignorance of

the details of the drugs mentioned under Ex.P3. Further, the

prosecution has not filed any document to prove that the

premises from which the alleged drugs were seized belongs to

the 1st respondent/A1. A1, during the course of trial, has

specifically denied about his reply Ex.P14, wherein A1

allegedly mentioned that the drugs found in his possession

were purchased from A2 to A4. In the said circumstances, the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable

doubt. Unless the prosecution discharges its burden of proving