Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Mr. Nyamatabad Chandra Shekar on 16 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.446 OF 2024
J U D G M E N T:
1. The appeal is preferred by the State questioning the
acquittal of the respondent/accused in C.C.No.71 of 2015
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Metpally, for the offences under Sections 18 (c), 18(A), 22
(1) [cca] of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 which is
punishable under Section 27(b) & 22(3) of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
appellant-complainant, learned counsel for the
respondent/accused and perused the entire material on
record.
3. The allegation is that the complainant, who was
examined as PW.1, along with PWs.2 and 3, who are
independent witnesses, and other department personnel
went to the premises of M/s Bhavani Medical and General
Stores, D.No.1-10-27/1, near Sangam Hospital, Metpally
village and mandal of Jagtial District. There, the accused
was found conducting business. PW.1 asked him to
produce the drug license, however, he failed to do so. In
the said premises, 45 varieties of drugs which were
marked as MO.1, were seized. Notice was served under
proper acknowledgment to the accused under Section 18-
A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 to disclose source
of drugs. Thereafter, the drugs were deposited before the
concerned Court. It is further the case that the accused
had admitted that he was running business without valid
license. Accordingly, after obtaining permission, complaint
was filed by the Drug Inspector.
4. Learned Magistrate examined PWs.1 to 6 and
marked Exs.P1 to P18. During the course of trial, MO.1/
the varieties of drugs whose description is given in the
Ex.P7, was marked.
5. Learned Magistrate, having considered the evidence
found that:
1. Though the premises from where the drugs
were seized was a busy commercial place, no
independent witnesses from the nearby premises
were taken.
2. PWs.2 and 3, who were taken by PW.1 to
act as witnesses to the seizure, have turned
hostile.
3. No documentary evidence was collected by
PW.1 to show that the shop from where the
drugs were seized stands in the name of the
accused.
4. Photographs of the medical shop of the
accused were also not filed to show that he was
running shop.
5. The Drug Inspector/PW.1, who raided the
premises, admitted in cross examination that
there is no specific written order from his
superior officer as PWs.5 and 6 accompanied him
for inspection of the above shop. Though PWs.5
and 6 accompanied PW.1 to the shop, their
evidence was not convincing.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that there is no reason why the
responsible public officials, who are the drug
inspectors, would file the false complaint against
the accused. The seizure can be considered even
in the absence of support by the independent
prosecution witnesses PWs.2 and 3.
6. 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 when evidence on record has been
analyzed. 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.
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
7. 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;
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has ignored material
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
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."
8. As seen from the record, the accused denied seizure
and also that he was running the shop. It is the bounden
duty of the Drug Inspector to provide proof of exclusive
possession of the premises of the accused to show that the
drugs were seized from his possession and the place
where the drugs were seized, accused was either the
owner or the lease holder. In the absence of any such
proof of exclusive possession of the premises, the question
of convicting the accused does not arise. The reasons
given by the learned Magistrate are convincing. There are
no compelling circumstances for this Court to interfere
with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal.
9. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State fails and is
hereby dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 16.10.2024
mmr
