The State Of Telangana vs A. Sai Prasad
2023 Latest Caselaw 4229 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 4229 Tel
Judgement Date : 29 November, 2023

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs A. Sai Prasad on 29 November, 2023

                               1




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.998 of 2023
JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State aggrieved by

the judgment dated 27.02.2023 in S.C.No.12 of 2018 passed

by the Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,

Zaheerabad acquitting the accused for the offence under

Section 32 and Section 18 (a) (vi) & 18 (c) r/w. Section 27(d) &

27 (b) (ii) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act-1940 (for short 'the

Drugs Act').

2. Briefly, the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the Drug

Inspectors is that the accused was running a medical shop in

the name of M/s.Venkateshwara Medical and General Stores

at Bhavani Mandir Road, Zaheerabad. He was found to be

selling drugs without prescription of a Doctor. Further, sale

invoices and other records were not maintained. Accordingly,

the Drug Inspectors seized some of the drugs for the purpose

of analysis. MOs.1 to 30 were seized from the medical shop.

3. After concluding their investigation, the Drug Inspectors

filed the complaint in the Court. On behalf of the

prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.25

were marked. The material objects which are MOs.1 to 30

were seized and produced before the trial Court.

4. Learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the accused

on the following grounds:-

(i) Both the panchas to the seizure turned hostile.

(ii) Drug Inspectors could not establish that the premises where the drugs were found was in exclusive possession of the accused or to whom they belonged to.

(iii) No bills that were obtained from M/s.Venkateshwara Medicals were filed.

(iv) Though the samples were sent for analysis, even before the receipt of such report, complaint was filed without knowing whether the drugs seized were in violation of any provisions of the Drugs Act.

(v) The Drug Inspectors did not verify who was running the medical shop and from where the drugs were seized. The Drug Inspectors further failed to connect the accused A.Sai Prasad with the medical shop where the drugs were seized.

(vi) The Drug Inspectors did not follow the procedure laid down under the Drugs Act for seizure, conducting raid and sampling.

5. Having found that the Drug Inspectors utterly failed to

follow any of the procedure prescribed under the Drugs Act,

further the accused A.Sai Prasad could not be connected with

the medical shop namely M/s.Venkateshwara Medical and

General Stores where the drugs were seized, learned Assistant

Sessions Judge found it fit to acquit the accused.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the

State would submit that the documents were marked during

the trial and though the independent witnesses have turned

hostile, there is no reason why the evidence of the Drug

Inspectors cannot be taken into consideration to convict the

accused. MOs.1 to 30, drugs were in fact seized and

exhibited before the trial Court. In the said circumstances,

conviction has to be reversed.

7. 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

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

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.

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;

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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. The duty of the Drug Inspectors is to establish that the

accused is in conscious and exclusive possession of the

premises from where the drugs were seized. Further, due

procedure has to be followed for sampling and sending them

to the laboratory for the purpose of analysis. Violation of

procedure under the Drugs Act for sampling would draw

adverse inference against the case of the prosecution.

10. Though it is alleged that the accused was selling drugs

without prescription of a Doctor, not a single witness is

examined to show that drugs were being sold without

prescription. Further, for samples seized, no payments or

bills were taken from the premises.