Telangana High Court
The State Of A.P.,Rep By Pp., High Court, ... vs M/S. Besto Plast, Madhya Pradesh, And ... on 19 December, 2023
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
Criminal Appeal No.526 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
Appellant/State and the learned counsel for the
respondents/accused.
2. The accused were charged with the offence under Section
18(a) (i) r/w 16 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act punishable under
Section 27(d) of said Act, alleging that they, being the manufacturers
and sellers of Vitamin 'A' and 'D' capsules, have manufactured the
said drugs with sub-standard quality.
3. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence adduced before it, has acquitted the respondents/accused
of the charges levelled against them.
4. It is the submission of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that
the trial Court ought to have considered the evidence of PW.2/Drug
Inspector in correct perspective and it also ought to have scrutinized
the documents marked in support of the Prosecution case. It is also
submitted that inspite of sufficient evidence against the accused, the
trial Court has erroneously acquitted them. Hence, he prayed to
allow this appeal and convict the accused.
2 JS, J
5. The learned counsel for respondents/accused on the other
hand, contended that the trial Court, in its judgment, has recorded a
finding that the Drug Inspector who conducted the entire process of
collecting the sample and sending it for analysis, was not examined
before the Court and there was much time gap in sending the second
sample for analysis. The trial Court has further recorded a finding
that the Prosecution has failed to mark the laboratory analysis
reports, and ultimately, on coming to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to follow the procedure contemplated under
Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, has rightly acquitted the
accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the findings
recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
6. A perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that the main
ground for acquittal of accused is non-examination of the Drug
Inspector who initiated the entire process. The said Drug Inspector,
though was shown as a witness, could not be examined by the
Prosecution as he was out of Country at relevant point of time. In
his place, the Prosecution has examined the subsequent Drug
Inspector, who has merely identified the signatures of the earlier
Drug Inspector on all the relevant documents. It is to be noted that
this Drug Inspector who has been examined before the Court has not
3 JS, J
even accompanied the earlier Drug Inspector while collecting the
samples. Therefore, she could not depose anything about the
process that has been followed by the earlier Officer while collecting
the samples. Further, after the first sample was sent for
Government laboratory for analysis and after receipt of the report
thereof, on the request of accused persons, the second sample was
sent for analysis after ten months of receiving the first report, which
is not permissible.
7. Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prescribes the
procedure to be followed while collecting the samples, preserving
them and sending the same to the laboratory for analysis. This
forms crucial part of the entire investigation. Until and unless the
Court is satisfied that the procedure contemplated under the Act is
scrupulously followed by the Officer concerned, it is not safe to
convict the accused. Since the vital witness for the Prosecution i.e.
the then Drug Inspector who undertook the entire process could not
be examined, the accused has lost the opportunity of defending his
case by cross-examining him. This non-examination of the Officer
concerned is fatal to the case of the Prosecution, and hence, this
Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly
acquitted the accused.
4 JS, J
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is dismissed as devoid of
merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:19.12.2023
Ksk
