The Drugs Inspector vs Bachu Raju
2023 Latest Caselaw 2725 Tel

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

1. The Drug Inspector of Kamareddy filed a complaint against

respondent/accused for the offences under Section 18(c ) r/w

Section 62 punishable under Section 27(b)(ii), Section 18-A

punishable under Section 28, 22(1)(cca) punishable under Section

22(3), Rule 65(18) r/w Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section

27(d), Rule 65(3)(1) r/w Section 18(a)(vi) punishable under Section

27(d), Rule 65(4)(4)(i) r/w 18(a) (vi) punishable under Section 27(d)

of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act of 1940).

2. It is the case of the Drug Inspector/P.W.1 that on 22.02.2013,

he received a complaint from the villagers of Bibipet where medical

store (A2 was located. It was alleged that A1, who is the proprietor

was indulging in sale of samples and spurious drugs. Accordingly,

P.W.1 proceeded to the village along with P.Ws.3 and 5 to act as

mediators. A1 was found selling drugs without issuing sale bills,

without maintaining prescription register. Thereafter, Ex.P2

Inspection report was prepared and obtained signatures of A1 and

other mediators.

3. Thereafter, having followed the procedure, complaint was filed.

The prosecution in all examined P.Ws.1 to 6. P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 are

Drug Inspectors.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, having examined witnesses and

marking documents acquitted the accused mainly on the ground

that P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 had no authorization to conduct seizure or

raid the premises. During the course of trial, it was admitted that

though the witnesses stated that they were having written

instructions for conducting raid, no such written instructions were

filed. Further, neither P.W.1, P.W.2 had filed any notification

showing that the witnesses were either having full additional charge

as Drug Inspector or they had jurisdiction in the area to conduct

raids.

5. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the following judgments:

i) M/s.Gaba Pharmaceuticals, Hyderabad and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2007(2) Crimes 358 (A.P) (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

ii) Johnson & Johnson Ltd. H.p and another v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 457 T.S & A.P. High Court.

iii) M/s.Chennakesha Bandage & others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2010(1) ALT (Crl.) 219( A.P)

iv) State of Maharashtra v. R.A.Chandrawarkar & others reported in 1999 Crl.Law Journal 4449 (Bombay High Court).

6. During the course of trial, P.W.5, who was present admitted

that he had instructions to conduct raid along with P.Ws.1 and 2.

Though, he claimed that he was authorized, no such authorization

was filed. P.Ws.1 and 2 do not have jurisdiction in the area of the

accused to conduct raid. Under Section 22 of the Act of 1940, only

the Inspector, who has been appointed for a particular area has the

powers to inspect and take samples of the drugs and do all such

necessary investigation. The Drug Inspector is appointed under

Section 21. Under Section 21, the powers of the Inspector can be

exercised and duties may be performed subject to prescription of

such powers. Under Section 23, the procedure to be adopted by the

Inspectors is mentioned. In the absence of the Drug Inspector being

empowered to inspect and unless it is shown that the Drug

Inspector conducting raid was empowered for that particular area,

the question of conducting raid does not arise. I do not find any

infirmity with the orders of the learned Sessions Judge. There are

no compelling reasons to reverse the well reasoned judgment of

acquittal.

7. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and

another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 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 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.

(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536

(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450

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 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. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous

applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.09.2023 kvs

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.277 OF 2021

Date: 26.09.2023

kvs