Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S. Paras Pharmaceutical Product on 11 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:7516
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH NAFR
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2026.02.12
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
11:10:38
+0530
ACQA No. 399 of 2010
• State of Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
1. M/s. Paras Pharmaceutical Product 75, Mahavir Nagar, Indore,
Madhya Pradesh.
2. Rohit Doshi, S/o Shri Jayantlal Doshi, aged about 47 Years, R/o 8/1,
South Tukoganj, Indore Madhya Pradesh,
3. Dilip, S/o Jayvantlal Doshi, aged about 51 Years, R/o 8/1, South
Tukoganj, Indore Madhya Pradesh,
4. Ashwin, S/o Ratan Desai, aged about 58 Years, R/o 2A Kailash Park,
Geeta Bhawan, Indore, Madhya Pradesh,
5. Smt. Rasila Ben (Died and Deleted) as Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated
31-01-2026
Nos. 2 to 5 are partners of M/s. Paras Pharmaceutical Product, 75,
Mahavir Nagar, Indore (Madhya Pradesh)
6. M/s. Bharat Medical Corporation, 2nd Floor, International Chamber 29/2,
Maharani Road, Indore Madhya Pradesh
7. Kishore Masturi Malik, M/s. Bharat Medical Corporation, Indore
Madhya Pradesh
8. M/s Karande Medical Stores, Juni Hatri, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
9. Trimbak Rao (Died and Deleted) as Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 31-
01-2026.
10. Ramchandra (Died and Deleted) as Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 31-
01-2026 ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu and Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocates.
For Respondents : None.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
Judgment on Board
11.02.2026
1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 23.07.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dongargarh, Link Court, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 43/2002, whereby respondent Nos. 1 to 10 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a), 18(a)(1) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short, "the Act, 1940"), read with Rule 65/27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. However, the learned trial Court convicted only the proprietor of M/s Pandit Medical Stores, Khairagarh, namely Ramesh Mishra, for the offences punishable under Sections 16(1)(a) and 17(a) read with Section 27(b) of the Act, 1940. The said conviction was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon) vide judgment dated 03.09.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 92/2002. Being aggrieved thereby, Ramesh Mishra preferred Criminal Revision No.431 of 2003 before this Court. During the pendency of the said revision, accused-Ramesh Mishra expired on 24.04.2013, and consequently, the criminal revision stood disposed of as having abated vide order dated 14.08.2013.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.03.1988, PW-1 Ajay Shrikhande, Drug Inspector, while inspecting medical stores at Khairagarh, purchased a sample of "Paraquin Tablets" manufactured by M/s Paras Pharmaceutical Product, Indore, from M/s Pandit Medical Stores, Khairagarh. The sample was divided, sealed and sent to the Government Analyst, Bhopal, for examination. The Government Analyst 3 reported that the drug was "Not of Standard Quality." Thereafter, the vendor was informed of the analyst's report and was asked to disclose the source of purchase. Upon inquiry, it was alleged that the drug had been supplied through M/s Karande Medical Stores and M/s Bharat Medical Corporation, ultimately linking it to the manufacturer, M/s Paras Pharmaceutical Product. After obtaining sanction from the competent authority, a complaint was filed against the accused persons i.e. retailer, wholesalers, manufacturer and their partners for contravention of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 Ajay Shrikhande and proved documents relating to sampling, dispatch, analyst's report and correspondence. The accused persons denied the allegations and claimed false implication.
4. The Court of ACJM, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of the charges leveled against them.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents despite clear evidence that the drug sample in question was declared "Not of Standard Quality" by the Government Analyst. He further submits that the prosecution has duly proved the sampling procedure and the analyst's report in accordance with law, and the batch number and label on the seized drug clearly connected it to the respondents i.e. manufacturer and the distribution chain. Despite the availability of 4 sufficient and reliable evidence, the learned trial Court committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Consequently, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-
"25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms 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. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters."
8. As regards the involvement of the accused persons/respondents in the offence in question, the testimony of PW-1 Ajay Shrikhande, Durg Inspector is very significant. He deposed that on 16.03.1988, he conducted an inspection of M/s Pandit Medical Stores and, after paying a sum of Rs. 44/- and obtaining a proper receipt, purchased a sample of "Paraquin Tablets" for the purpose of analysis. He stated that the said tablets were divided into four portions, duly sealed and labelled in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and the signatures of the vendor were obtained on the sealed packets. He further deposed that one portion of the sample was forwarded to the Government Analyst along with a memorandum in the prescribed form. He also deposed that he proved the report of the Government Analyst declaring the drug to be 5 "Not of Standard Quality." According to him, a copy of the analyst's report was thereafter forwarded to the vendor, calling upon him to disclose the source from which the drug had been procured. He further stated that the vendor initially replied that the drug had been purchased from Renuka Medico, Raipur, but subsequently furnished photocopies of certain invoices claiming purchase from Karande Medical Stores, Rajnandgaon. He further deposed that he visited Karande Medical Stores for verification, however, no original vouchers or primary records were seized during the course of such inspection. In his cross- examination, he admitted that only photocopies of the invoices were produced, but no original records were seized from Karande Medical Stores, nor any specific entry was made regarding any refusal to produce the original documents. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 establishes that the sampling procedure was followed and that the sample was duly sent for analysis, and it also proves the report of the Government Analyst. However, his testimony discloses certain deficiencies in the investigation, particularly with regard to the verification and seizure of the original purchase records from the alleged source in the distribution chain. This omission creates a material gap in establishing the complete chain of supply and, therefore, weakens the prosecution case against the accused persons.
9. In addition to above, the order-sheet of the trial Court dated 26.03.1993 reveals that an application was filed on behalf of accused persons/respondent Nos. 1 to 5 seeking permission to send the sample to the Central Drugs Laboratory (CDL), Calcutta, for re-analysis under Section 25(4) read with Section 23(4) of the Act, 1940. In the said application, it was stated that the complaint had been filed by the Drug 6 Inspector on the basis of sanction and that the report of the Government Analyst had been challenged by the firm in response to the show cause notice. The accused persons had expressed their disagreement with the Government Analyst's report and had conveyed their intention to challenge the same by getting the sample re-examined by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Calcutta. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the seized sample had expired in November, 1989. Consequently, the prayer for further analysis by the Central Drugs Laboratory was rejected. As a result, the manufacturer was deprived of its valuable statutory right under Section 25(3) of the Act, 1940 to seek re-analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory. Such deprivation has caused serious prejudice to the defence of the manufacturer as well as the intermediate dealers.
10. Thus, from the above evidence, it is quite vivid that although the sampling procedure was properly followed and that the Government Analyst's report established that the drug was not of standard quality, but serious deficiencies exist in the prosecution case with regard to establishing the chain of distribution of the alleged drug. Further, the photocopies of the invoices allegedly issued by Karande Medical Stores were not proved in accordance with law by leading primary evidence. The Drug Inspector neither seized the original records nor properly recorded any refusal to produce the same. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish, by reliable and admissible evidence, that the substandard drug supplied to M/s Pandit Medical Stores had in fact been sold by Karande Medical Stores or Bharat Medical Corporation, or that it had been manufactured by M/s Paras Pharmaceutical Product, as alleged. 7 Moreover, the material on record indicates that the manufacturer was deprived of its valuable statutory right to seek re-analysis of the sample by the Central Drugs Laboratory. The prosecution also failed to produce the sample before the Court or to ensure re-analysis prior to the expiry of the drug. The burden lies upon the prosecution to establish the entire chain of sale and distribution through cogent and legally admissible evidence, but it failed to do so.
11. The learned trial Court, after elaborately discussing and analysing the evidence led by the prosecution, rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the aforesaid charges leveled against the accused persons/respondents and accordingly, acquitted them.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162 of 2011 in case of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-
"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
"(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;'
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re- appreciation of evidence, it specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;8
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen & Mallappa (supra), the view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be a plausible and possible view. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.
14. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of accused persons/respondents is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh