Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Harish Kumar on 23 February, 2010
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Crl. Appeal No. 2055-SBA of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 2055-SBA of 2002
Date of decision : 23.02.2010
State of Haryana
....Appellant
V/s
Harish Kumar
....Respondent
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajeev K. Thakar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the appellant.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondent.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of respondent Harish Kumar of charges levelled against him under Section 27
(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity the "Act") and rules made thereunder.
Brief factual background of the case is that on 20.07.1992 medical shop of the accused being run in the name of Khanna clinic was raided by Drug Inspector Varinder Kumar Kamboj. During inspection of the shop 12 different kinds of allopathic drugs were found stocked therein. According to prosecution, the accused could not produce any bill or licence to stock the said medicines and for sale thereof. Thus the drugs were taken in possession in the presence of Sh. Gian Chand, brother of accused/respondent and sealed in a box by the Drug Inspector. Form 16 was drawn up and the drugs seized were mentioned therein. Vide order dated 21.07.1992, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal allowed the District Drug Crl. Appeal No. 2055-SBA of 2002 2 Inspector, Kaithal to keep the seized drugs in his custody. On 25.09.1992, a reply was received from the accused whereby he furnished the bills Ex. PF & PG showing the purchase of the drugs seized and also a copy of registration certificate No. 85186 Ex. PH from Rajkiya Ayurvedic Avm Unani Chiktia Parishad, Bihar.
Charge was framed against the accused under Section 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Act vide order dated 06.04.1998 During trial, the prosecution examined as many as two witnesses in support of its case i.e. CW-1 Drug Inspector Varinder Kumar Kamboj and CW 2 District Drug Inspector Rajinder Kumar Raheja.
The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, wherein all the incriminating evidence available on record was put to him. He pleaded innocence and claimed false implication in the case. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.
The trial court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution had not disputed that accused held a certificate of registration from the State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council, Bihar. By virtue of Schedule-I to the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963, a person holding a degree or diploma of any Ayurvedic or Unani College recognized by the faculty within Punjab or outside would be eligible for medical practice in the State of Punjab and Haryana. It was held that in view of the said rule the accused came within the definition of registered medical practitioner and as such he was entitled to keep medicines for administration to his patients.
Learned counsel for the State while assailing the judgment has submitted that the accused being a Ayurvedic doctor having a certificate Crl. Appeal No. 2055-SBA of 2002 3 from Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council, Bihar was not entitled to keep allopathic medicines in his possession.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment reported as Phul Singh Vs. State of Haryana (P&H)1986(1) RCR(Criminal) 532 and contends that in view of the ratio of the said judgment the accused was entitled to keep medicines in his shop. According to counsel the accused cannot be held liable for violation of Section 18(a) of the Act. He has further pointed out that the appeal preferred by the State of Haryana in the judgment delivered in Phul Singh's case (supra) was dismissed by the Apex Court on 29.07.1998 in Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 1984.
Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the proposition of law laid down in the judgment reported as Phul Singh case (supra).
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the judgment delivered by the court below. The same is thus upheld and the appeal stands dismissed.
February 23, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE