Bangalore District Court
The Drugs Inspector vs Satish Sharma on 2 April, 2018
1 CC.No.948-07
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES AT: BANGALORE.
Dated this the 2nd day April 2018
: Present:
Sri. SHANTHANNA ALVA M., B.A., LL.B.,
Presiding Officer, Special Court
for Economic Offences, Bangalore.
CC.No.948-2007
Complainant: The Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-2,
Bangalore.
(By Sr. A.P.P.)
.Vs.
Accused: Satish Sharma, Proprietor,
S/o. Sugand Chand, No.7/1, Ambha
Nilaya, Ground Floor, Basavaraj Lane,
Cotton pet Cross, Bangalore.
M/s. Peacock Pharma, No.40-41,
Ground Floor, C.V.R. Building,
Binny Mill Road, Bangalore,
(Accused by Sri. A.N.N., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant/the State at the instance of Drugs Inspector, Bangalore Circle-2, Bangalore, filed the complaint u/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the accused 2 CC.No.948-07 violated Sec.18©, u/s.18(a)(i), R/w.Sec.17B(e), 18A, 22 (cca), 24 which are punishable u/s.27(b)(ii), 27(c), 28 and 22(3) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. (Herein after referred as "the Act").
2. The complainant's case is that he is the Inspector appointed u/s.21 of the Act and posted as Drug Inspector of Bangalore Cricle-11, Bangalore Urban District. Accused is the Proprietor of the firm M/s. Peacock Pharma, situated at No.40/41, Ground Floor, CVR Building, Binny Mill Road, Bangalore-53 and had the licence in Form No. 20B and 21B valid up to 10.06.2007 to deal with drugs by way of wholesale and it was cancelled by the order dated: 06.01.2006. On a credible information, C.w.1-S.Nagaraju, then Drug Inspector of B'lur, Circle-2 raided the house of the accused situated at No.7/1, Ambha Nilaya, Ground Floor, Basavaraj Lane, Cotton pet Cross, Bangalore-53 along with colleagues officers i.e., C.w.3 to 5 and pancha witnesses i.e., C.w.6 3 CC.No.948-07 and 7 and they found stock of the drugs. Accused not produced the drug licence for that premises and purchase invoices of the stocked of drugs. C.w.1 seized the drugs 40 in numbers under Form No.16. After that C.w.1 lodged the complaint against the accused at Cotton pet Police Station and in pursuant to that case was registered in Crime No.134/2005. On enquiry, the owners of the premises bearing No.40/41, Ground Floor, CVR Building, Binny Mill Road, Bangalore stated that the accused obtained the said premises on rent for 11 months commencing from 07.06.2002 and accused vacated the premises within a week of the same month. The Drug Controller (C.w.8) on 16.05.2005 formed a team of C.w.1, C.w.2, C.w.3, C.w.11, C.w.12; C.w.13 headed by C.w.10 to take up the investigation and permitted to visit all the places in and outside the State for the purpose of investigation. The accused not disclosed that source of acquisition of seized drugs and 4 CC.No.948-07 not furnished the bills for having purchased the drugs. In view of transfer C.W. 2 had taken the charge and he on the basis of certified copies received from C.w.44 and investigation report received from the Head Office vide Circular dated: 21.06.2005, sought the permission from the Drug Controller to launch the prosecution against the accused. On 6.9.2007, C.w.44 handed over the original investigation reports and documents pertaining to the seized properties to C.w.35 to file the case. The investigation carried out by the team disclosed that seized drugs mentioned in Sl.No.42A, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8(a), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are not manufactured by the companies shown in their labels. The drugs mentioned in Sl. No. 42A, 5, 7, 8(b) and 18 are manufactured by the companies shown in their labels. It is alleged that the accused manufactured for sale, or sold or stocked or exhibited or offered for sale and distributed the drugs including those mentioned in 5 CC.No.948-07 the Form No.16 dated: 07.05.2005 at his residence No.7/1, Ambha Nilaya, Ground Floor, Basavaraj Lane, Cotton pet Cross, Bangalore-53 without valid and requisite licence granted under the provisions of the Act and that resulted in commission of offence punishable u/s.27 (b)(ii) of the Act. Accused manufactured for sale of the drugs which declared as spurious drugs u/s.17B (e) of the Act and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s. 27(©) of the Act. The accused not disclosed the source of acquisition of drugs, not produced the records, registers, documents in respect of drugs seized in Form No.16 and not disclosed the place where the drugs were manufactured or kept in respect of drugs seized under Form No.16 and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s.28 of the Act, hence the complaint.
3. On filing of the complaint, cognizance was taken and registered the case against accused for the offences alleged in the complaint. In response to the summons, 6 CC.No.948-07 the accused appeared through his respective counsel and enlarged on bail. Copies of the complaint and other documents were furnished to him. Then evidence before charge was recorded as required u/s. 244 of Cr.P.C. and then on hearing the learned Sr. APP & Ld Counsel of the accused, charge was framed against accused for the offences alleged in the complaint and read over to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the charge leveled against the accused the complainant examined 26 witnesses as P.w.1 to 26 and got marked the documents Ex.p.1 to 82 and Mos.1 to 39.
5. After closure of complainant's side evidence, the statement of accused person was recorded as provided u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied incriminatory evidence framed against him. The accused person not chosen to lead either oral or documentary evidence. 7 CC.No.948-07
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels. The points that arise for my consideration are :
Point No.1: Whether the Drug Inspector who investigated the matter had no jurisdiction and the complaint is bad for not having valid sanction?
Point No.2: Whether the complainant has proved that the drugs mentioned in Form No.16 dated: 03.05.2005 were seized from the residence of the accused bearing No.7/1, Ambha Nilaya, Ground Floor, Basavaraj Lane, Cotton pet, Cross, Bangalore and kept those drugs for sale and distribution and that resulted in commission the offence punishable u/s. 27
(b)(ii) of the Act.?
Point No.3: Whether the complainant has proved that the drugs seized from the residence of the accused in spurious drugs and by keeping them for sale and distribution resulted in commission of the offence punishable u/s. 27© of the Act ?
Point No.4: Whether the complainant has proved that the accused not disclosed the source of acquisition of seized drugs, produced records and thereby committed the offence u/s.18A of the Act which is punishable u/s.28 of the Act.
Point No.5: Whether the complainant has proved that the accused not disclosed the place where the drugs seized under Form No.16 are manufactured or kept and thereby committed the offence u/s.24 of the Act which is punishable u/s.28 of the Act.
Point No.6: What order?
8 CC.No.948-07
7. My findings on the above said points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative, Point No.2: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: In the Negative, Point No.4: In the Affirmative, Point No.5: In the Negative, Point No.6: As per the Final orders for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1: Accused taken up the contention that the Drug Inspector who investigated the matter had no jurisdiction to seize the alleged spurious drugs, investigate the matter and file the complaint. Section. 21 of the Act and in various rulings rendered by our Hon'ble High Court and other High Courts makes it clear that only the person appointed as Drug Inspector through notification published in the Official Gazette is empowered to investigate the matter relating the contravention of the provisions of the Act. Here, the 9 CC.No.948-07 accused not taken up the specific contention that the Drug Inspectors who investigation the matter are not the Drug Inspectors appointed through a notification. Mere, suggestion that the Drug Inspectors had no jurisdiction is not sufficient. Even otherwise, the copies of the notifications produced by the complainant disclose that he and other Drug Inspectors who investigated the matter were the Drug Inspectors legally appointed and the Drug Inspector who seized the drug had the jurisdiction over the area where the drugs were seized.
9. The second contention is taken that there is no proper sanction to prosecute the accused person. Ex.p.44 is the sanction dated: 09.10.2007 given the Drug Controller. Perusal of the sanction order discloses the lack of required ingredients to constitute valid sanction. It is not stated what are the evidence pursued to confirm the existence of prima facie evidence, thus, it cannot be considered as valid sanction. The question here is 10 CC.No.948-07 whether the sanction is mandatory to launch the criminal case for contraventions of the provision envisaged under Chapter-IV of the Act.
10. The learned counsel of the accused relied upon the number of rulings and argued that the sanction is mandatory. Chapter-IV of the Act deals with the manufacturing, selling and distribution of drugs and cosmetics. Chapter-IV-A deals with provision relating to deals with taking cognizance of offences relating of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs. Sec. 32 of Chapter- IV deals with taking of cognizance and it no where says that there must be sanction from the higher authority to initiate the prosecution under that Chapter. Rule.51 (5) of the Act says that the inspector subject to the instructions of the controlling authority shall initiate any complaint in writing which may be made to him. The reading of the section and rule referred above, it can be very well inferred that what required is only the instruction from the 11 CC.No.948-07 controlling authority and not the sanction. As argued by the learned in charge Sr. A.P.P., only Section. 33(m) of the Act mandates the sanction to file the case for contravention of the provisions under Chapter-IVA of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Drugs Inspector & Another Vs, Fizekem Laboratories (P) Ltd., and other, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 784, wherein it is held that "sanction is required only if proceedings are initiated under Chapter-IV-A of the Act. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel of the accused persons that the complaint is not maintainable in view of not carrying the investigation by the competent officer and not of having valid sanction is not sustainable. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative.
11. Point No.2: It is admitted fact that the accused was the proprietor of M/s. Peacock Pharma, Bangalore and he had the licence in Form No.20B and 21B valid up to 10.06.2007. The licence was issued to sell, stock or 12 CC.No.948-07 exhibit for sale or distribute the drugs other than those specified in 8(Schedule-C., C(1) and X ) for the premises having No. 40/41, Ground Floor, CVR Building, Binny Mill Road, Bangalore-560053. Admittedly, the accused had no licence to keep the drugs in the premises bearing No.7/1 Ambha Nilaya, Ground Floor, Basavaraj Lane, Cotton Pet Cross, Bangalore. The accused not taken up the contention that he obtained the permission from the competent authority to stock the drugs in that premises. There would not be dispute over the legal proposition that stocking of drugs in the premises other than those permitted in the licence, amounts to violation of licence conditions and that become an offence u/s.18© of the Act, which is punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) of the Act.
12. The question here is whether the drugs were seized from the residence of the accused on 07.05.2005. C.w.1-Sri.S.Nagaraju, the then Drug Inspector of Cricle- 2, Bangalore examined as P.w.1 deposed that he visited 13 CC.No.948-07 the residence of the accused along with colleagues officials and pancha witnesses and found the stock of drugs and he seized the same through Form No.16 and drawn the mahazar are marked as Ex.p.1 and 2. Ex.p.3 and 4 are the statements given by the accused on that day and wherein, the accused admitted about the stocking of the drugs in the residence for the purpose of distribution. Accused not taken up the contention that the statements were obtained by coercion or though other unlawful means. While examining P.w.1, it was suggested that the accused had shifted the drugs to residential address to clean the shop premises and that were brought to the notice of the department. But in this regard, there is absolutely no evidence.
13. There is no evidence to the effect that at the relevant point of time, the accused was in possession of the premises where the licence was issued to stock the drugs for distribution. Ex.p.18 is the letter given by 14 CC.No.948-07 C.w.47 who happened to be the owner of the premises bearing No. 40/41, C.V.R. Building Binny Mill Road, Bangalore and wherein, it is was stated that the accused obtained said premises for rent on 07.062002 and within one month, the accused vacated the premises. The accused not produced any documents to the effect that he was the tenant of the licensed premises at the time of seizure.
14. The learned counsel of the accused would argue that there is no reliable evidence to the effect that the drugs were stocked in the residence for distribution. It is also argued that the independent seizure mahazar witnesses were not examined. I/c. Sr. A.P.P., relied upon the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Drugs Inspector Nandyal Rep. Public Prosecutor Vs. K. Pullaiah, reported in 2012 (2) ALD (Cri.) 26, wherein, it is held that "when large quantity of drug was found in possession of the accused, it left no 15 CC.No.948-07 room of doubt that he was stocked or kept the drugs for sale." At any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that much drugs were stocked without any purpose and it can only be presumed that drugs were stocked for the purpose of distribution. As far as non-examination of pancha witnesses is concerned, here, the seizure of the drugs is admitted. The learned In charge Sr. A.P.P., relied upon the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of 2011(2) RCR (Cri.) 701, wherein, it is held that "the fact that Dharam Pal-an independent witness was not examined in the Court does not create any dent on the case of the prosecution because it is only in those cases, where the deposition of official witnesses does not aspire confidence, the Court looks forward for corroboration from an independent source. But, where official witnesses are truthful and their testimony is trustworthy, there is no need for the court to insist on examination of 16 CC.No.948-07 independent witnesses." Here, also the accused has put the signature on mahazar and form No.16 and not emphatically denied the seizure.
15. Thus, on appreciation of documents on record, I hold that the complainant succeeded in proving that the accused violated the terms of licence which is an offence u/s.18© of the Act, which is punishable u/s.27(b)(ii) of the Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in Affirmative.
16. Point No.3: The complainant come up with the case that most of the drugs seized from the premises of accused are spurious in the sense that they are not the product of manufacturers who purports to be the manufacturers. It is averred that the seized drugs were taken to the manufacturers and they verified them with control samples and gave opinion that they have not manufactured them. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused manufactured the alleged spurious 17 CC.No.948-07 drugs and no attempt being made to fine out the manufacturers.
17. C.w.1-Sri.S.Nagaraju, examined as P.w.1 deposed about the seizure of drugs stated in Form No.16 is marked as Ex.p.2. P.w.1 stated that the accused gave statement is marked as Ex.p.3 and stated that he will show the supplier of drugs, but not shown the supplier and gave statement is marked as Ex.p.4. P.w.1 deposed that he lodged the complaint as per Ex.p.5 and submitted the report is marked as Ex.p.6 to the Drugs Controller. He issued the notice is marked as Ex.p.7 to the accused and Ex.p.8 is the acknowledgement. The copy of the letter, FIR and the case diary are marked as Ex.p.9 to 11. The reminder issued to accused, postal acknowledgement and requisition submitted to the court are marked as Ex.p.12 to 14. The investigation report submitted to Drugs Controller, the letter written by explaining the difference between the quantity of drugs 18 CC.No.948-07 and the reply are marked as Ex.p.15 to 17. The seized drugs under Form No.16 are marked as Mos.1 to 35.
18. C.w.2-Sri.M.Suresh, ADC-2, Bangalore Circle-2, Bangalore examined as P.w.2 deposed that he recorded the statement of the owner of the premises is marked as Ex.p.18 and Ex.p.19 is the circular dated:13.05.2005 received from the head office to investigate and report as to stock and sale of spurious drugs. P.w.2 deposed that the circular dated:16.05.2005 is marked as Ex.p.20 was issued with test of 63 drugs by confirming that they are spurious drugs and directed combining operation. On 21.06.2005, another circular is marked as Ex.p.21 was issued. P.w.1 deposed that he submitted the letter is marked as Ex.p.22 to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Division-2, Malleshwaram, Bangalore and received the letter is marked as Ex.p.23. On 23.01.2006 he took over the charge from C.w.1 through CTC is marked as Ex.p.24 and received 19 CC.No.948-07 properties mentioned in the list is marked as Ex.p.25. Then he written letter is marked as Ex.p.26 to C.w.44 to furnish the required documents to file the case against the accused. Then, on 10.09.2007, he received the letter along with comparison details of control sample, seized drugs and test report in respect of drugs seized under Form No.16 dated:07.05.2005 and that documents is marked as Ex.p.29.
19. P.w.2 deposed that on verification of Ex.p.29, he found that 32 drugs were not genuine and 8 drugs found genuine. Then, on 30.05.2007, he sent the letter and specimen sample of Unicontin-400 tablets to confirm its genuinity through a letter is marked as Ex.p.30 and Ex.p.31 is the acknowledgement and through a letter is marked as Ex.p.32. The manufacturer intimate the said drug is not genuine. Then, on 08.06.2005 he visited M/s. Instacare Laboratory Pvt., Ltd., Barod, Gujarath and shown Neuroxin Inj., and after verification then issued 20 CC.No.948-07 the letter is marked as Ex.p.33 confirming that it is not their product. Then, on 13.06.2005, he visited M/s. Torrent Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Mehsana, Gujarath with a sample of Alprax-0.25mg tablets, Alprax-0.5mg tablets, Domstal tablets, Lorvas tablets and Deplatt tablets. On verification, they confirmed that Alprax-0.25mg tablets and Alprax-0.5mg tablets were not manufactured by them and in this regard, given the letter is marked as Ex.p.34. On 09.06.2005 he visited M/s. RPG Life Science Ltd., Ankleshwar, Bharuch along with Alprax- 0.25mg tablets, Alprax-0.5mg tablets and Spiromide tablets. After verification, they confirmed that Alprax- 0.25mg tablets and Alprax-0.5mg tablets were not belong to them and in this regard, issued the letter is marked as Ex.p.35. P.w.2 deposed that he submitted the completed investigation report is marked as Ex.P.36 for sanction. He written letter is marked as Ex.p.37 and received the letter is marked as Ex.p. 38 stating that the 21 CC.No.948-07 licence was given to the premises from where the drugs were seized and furnished the licence and other particulars are marked as Ex.p.39 to 43. Then on the strength of sanction is marked as Ex.p.44, he filed the complaint.
20. C.w.22-Sri.Nilesh Mohan Lal Gandhi, Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Mumbai, examined as P.w.3 deposed that he accompanied C.w.10 to M/s. Pfizer Ltd., Thane, Navi Mumbai. C.w.23- Sri.P.V.Kanitkar, Retired Director, Mumbai, examined as P.w.4 deposed that he verified Dolonex DT-20mg. tablets and found that they are not manufactured by their company and in this regard, gave letter and report are marked as Ex.p.27 and 28. C.w.10-Sri.H.Srinivasa, Deputy Drugs Controller, Regional Officer, Tumkuru, examined as P.w.5 deposed that on credible information on 07.05.2005 he called accused to M/s. Deepak International, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore & enquired. 22 CC.No.948-07 Accused admitted that the stocking of spurious drugs in his residence at Cotton pet, Bangalore and he got them seized through jurisdictional Drug Inspector. P.w.5 deposed that they unofficially subjected some of the drugs for verification and found that 63 drugs listed in the circular are spurious. Then, on 16.05.2005, the Drug Controller formed a special team and he was made head of the team. The team visited the manufacturer with samples of drugs and hey verified and given the report. The report given by M/s. Kare Labs Pvt., Ltd., Goa, in respect of Eption tablets is marked as Ex.p.46. The report given by M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi, in respect of Sporidex capsules are marked as Ex.p.47 and 48. The report given by M/s. Cipla Ltd., Goa in respect of Norflox-400, Norflox-200, Ciplox-500, Ciplox-250, Alerid, Amlopres-10, Tadacip-10 and Oflox- 400 is marked as Ex.p.49 and 50. The report given by M/s. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Yanam, in respect of 23 CC.No.948-07 Enam-5 and Reclide is marked as Ex.p.51. The report given by M/s. Merck Ltd., (I) in respect of Nifedipine Capsules and Depicor-5 capsules is marked as Ex.p.52 and 53. The report of M/s. Medi Tabs Specialties Pvt., Ltd., Goa, in respect of Ciplox-TZ, Norflox-TZ and Cheston-DT are marked as Ex.p.54 and 55. The report of the M/s. East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Calcutta, in respect of Quiniodochlor tablets are marked as Ex.p.56 to 59.
21. The report given by M/s. Encore Health Care Pvt., Ltd., Mumbai, in respect of Stemetil-5mg, are marked as Ex.p.60 to 62. The statement and report given by M/s. RPG Life Sciences Limited, Ankleshwar, in respect of Alprax and Spiromide tablets is marked as Ex.p.63 to 65. The report given by Voveran SR-100 by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, Pune is marked as Ex.p.66 and 67. The statement and report given by the authorized person of Dolphin Laboratories are marked 24 CC.No.948-07 as Ex.p.68 and 69. The report given by M/s. Instacare Laboratories (P) Limited, Gujarat, in respect of Neruoxin Inj., vials are marked as Ex.p.70 and 71. The report given by M/s. J. B. Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited, Gujarat, in respect of Ofloxacin-400mg tablets are marked as Ex.p.72 and 73. The statement given by Nicholas Piramal India Ltd., Maharashtra, in respect of Regestrone-5mg., tablets are marked as Ex.p.74 and 75. The report given by M/s. Restech Pharmaceuticals, in respect of Primolut-N tablets and Oxalgin-DP tablets is marked as Ex.p.76. The statement given by the General Manager of Encore Healthcare Private Limited., in respect of Stemetil-5mg is marked as Ex.p.77. The report given by Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited, Pune, in respect of Cetzine tablets is marked as Ex.p.78. The sanction order is marked as Ex.p.79. The letter and Comparative Physical Analysis Report given by East 25 CC.No.948-07 India Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd., in respect of Enteroquinol tablets are marked as Ex.p.81 and 82.
22. C.w.36-Sri.Amitabha Kundu, Quality Control Manager, M/s. East India Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd., Kolkatta, examined as P.w.6 deposed that he verified the Enteroquinol tablets and found that the drugs was not manufactured by M/s. East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd., Kolkatta. C.w.42-Vijaya Kashiram Ghodge, Head Vendor Quality, M/s. Cipla Ltd., Mumbai, examined as P.w.9 deposed that he verified Stemetil-5mg., and found difference. C.w.30-Sri.Anand Karbelkar, examined as P.w.12 deposed that he verified Alprax and Spiromide tablets and found that they are not the products of M/s. RPG Life Sciences, Boroch. C.w.16-Smt.Jayashree Nair, Sr. Director, Quality Assurance M/s. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Pune examined as P.w.13 deposed on he report of the Drug Inspector, she verified Overan SR-100 tablets and found that they are not the 26 CC.No.948-07 product of M/s. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Pune. C.w.15-Sri.G.V.Narayana Reddy, Assistant Drug Controller, Bangalore Circle-5, Bangalore examined as P.w.15 deposed that he verified Primolut-N tablets and Oxalgin-DP tablets and found that they are not the product of M/s. Restech Pharmaceuticals, Ahmedabad. C.w.18-Sri.Jayant D. Patwardhan, examined as P.w.18 deposed that he verified the various batches of Eption tablets and found that they are not the product of their company. C.w.37-Sri.R.S.Mungarwadi examined as P.w.26 deposed that he compared the Norflox, Ciplox, Alerid, Amlopres, Tadacip and Oflax and found that those drugs are not the product of M/s. Cipla Limited, Verna, Goa.
23. The above referred are the oral and documents available on record. I/c. Sr. A.P.P., argued that the oral evidence coupled with report and statements given by the respective manufacturer are more than significant to 27 CC.No.948-07 hold that the drugs seized from the premises of accused are spurious drugs. It is argued that the accused not produced the documents. The accused not produced the documents for having purchased the seized drugs, thus, adverse inference has to be drawn by holding that the seized drugs are spurious one. As far as discrepancies in the oral evidence are concerned, it is argued that the minor discrepancies in the oral evidence bound to occur and that was to be ignored. In support of this line of argument relied upon the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Venkategowda & Ors., Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2006 (4) Crimes 338 (SC.), wherein, it is held that "Discrepancies and contradictions were minor and might be by reason that their cross examination was done after long gap and their examination was recorded after almost 10 Years."
24. Learned counsel of the accused argued that the complainant has failed to prove that the seized drugs are 28 CC.No.948-07 spurious. Only for the reason of non-production of the documents relating to the purchase of drugs from the manufacturers, it cannot be held that the seized drugs are spurious. It is argued that the Drug Inspector have seized the documents, but not produced them in this case, hence adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainant and benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. It is argued that there is no reliable evidence to the effect that the seized drugs were taken to the manufacturers and got them verified. The control samples of the drugs are not produced.
25. The complainant succeeded in proving that the drugs shown in the Form No.16 is marked as Ex.p.2 was seized from the residential premises of the accused. In the labels of the seized drugs, names of the manufacturers with all other required particulars mentioned. The respective manufacturers had the licences to produce the drugs and they did manufacture 29 CC.No.948-07 the drugs of the batch number mentioned in the labels and released to the market. The spurious drugs means, spurious or imitation drugs products formulations manufactured concealing the true Identify of the product and made to resemble another drugs. Here the seized drugs were no subjected to chemical analysis to verify as to whether they contain the formulations/ingredients mentioned in the label.
26. The complaint is based on the report and statements given by the respective officers of the manufacturers and their oral evidence contending that the seized drugs are spurious. The reports and statements were given mainly on the basis of the physical comparison of the labels and the drugs. There is no reliable evidence to the effect that the drugs seized from the residence of the accused were taken to the manufacturers. The drugs were not sealed and none of the persons who compared the drugs have affixed the signature on the drugs. Ex.p.16 is the letter 30 CC.No.948-07 written by C.w.2 to C.w.1 and wherein, he stated that the drugs given to him are not tallying with the quantity of the drugs seized from the residence of the accused. Ex.p.17 is the reply given by the Cw.2 and wherein, it is stated that out of the seized drugs C.w.10 had taken some of the drugs to the manufacturer for investigation and submitted the report. It is not forthcoming, when the seized drugs handed over and who has handed over. The oral evidence of the complainant, C.w.2 and C.w.10 are quite contrary to the averments made in the complaint.
27. There must be evidence to the effect that the very same drugs which were seized from the residence of the accused were taken for investigation purpose. Either in the complaint or in the evidence, it is not stated who and when the seized drugs were handed over to the team proved by the Drug Controller. According to the complainant, the drugs were seized on 07.05.2005 and 31 CC.No.948-07 at Para No.18, it is stated that the Drug Controller issued the circular dated: 21.06.05 to all the enforcement officers of the department informing that team of the officers constituted for investigation regarding spurious drugs, they verified some of the drugs and they found spurious drugs, then circular was issued. It is not forthcoming as to whether the drugs were verified. At Para No.42 of the complaint, it is stated that the Assistant Drugs Controller furnished the original investigation reports and the documents pertaining to the drugs at Sl.No.1 to 22. But, there is no material to the effect that C.w.44 has taken the seized drugs to the manufacturer level. At Para No.22(a), it is stated that it was confirmed by the manufacturers level that the drugs mentioned in Sl.No.42A, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8(a), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 were not manufactured by the companies. But, in Form No.16, Sl.No.42A and 8(a) is not mentioned. Funny part of the 32 CC.No.948-07 complaint is that without there being averment at para 45 & 46 it is stated that accused is the manufacturer of the seized drugs.
28. The complainant not collected the documents relating to the release of the drugs by the respective manufacturers. The non-collecting of these documents also raises reasonable doubt. The control samples are not produced and they are the primary evidence and in the absence of primacy evidence only on the basis of reports, statements and oral evidence, it cannot be held that seized drugs are spurious. The non-production of documents for having purchased the seized drugs is concerned only on that basis; it cannot be held that the drugs are spurious. Ex.p.3 is the statement given to the accused and wherein, the accused stated that he purchased the dugs from Nagpur. The Drug Inspectors have not made any attempt to locate the suppliers of drugs to the accused. P.w.1 in the cross examination 33 CC.No.948-07 admitted that invoices were collected from the premises of the accused and they were not produced. It is argued that the purchase invoices were not with accused and seized invoices were pertaining to the sale made by the accused. These aspects can be proved by producing the seized invoices from the residence of the accused.
29. It is to be noted that manufacturers had not taken the legal action stating that their product being manufactured by some other person. As stated above, it is not the case of the complainant that the accused manufactured the seized drugs. For the reason that accused not produced the document to the effect that he purchased the said capsules from the manufacturers, it cannot be held that seized drug is manufactured by some body else. The complainant counsel not collected the distribution records of the said batches from the respective manufacturing companies. There is no 34 CC.No.948-07 complaint from the public that the use of the seized drugs resulted in causing health issues.
30. It is argued that the anti-social elements with greed of making profits get the drugs from the market as soon as their release and then manufacturer the similar drugs by using domestic printing and small machines. It may be true, but where those drugs are manufactured. Here, in the initial stage, the Drug Inspectors got every opportunity to seek the source of acquisition, but at that time, no attempt being made to find out as to where those drugs were manufactured. It is true that plenty of spurious drugs are in the market and they are affecting the health of the society and their availability is shaking the confidence of indigenous as well as foreign buyers. It is also affecting the health of the public. But mere filing the cases against the supplier of the spurious drugs without making the attempts to locate the manufacturer of spurious drugs, no purpose is going to serve. There is 35 CC.No.948-07 also possibility that manufacturing company itself selling the rejected drugs through the distributors.
31. When question being asked as to why no attempt being made to find out the manufacturer of the spurious drugs, the readymade answer being given that agency has no resource and men power to investigate to that level. But there is no legal bar for taking the assistance of the jurisdictional police to unearth the origin of the spurious drugs. This type of racket if exists must be busted by taking necessary help from the Police and other Agencies. Such racket has to be removed from the root and filing the case against the distributor is of no use. This court hopes that in future the agency will look into these aspects in all seriousness and whenever the manufacturer and sale of spurious drugs comes forth, the agency will make all efforts to unearth the manufacturers and the entire racket of manufacture and 36 CC.No.948-07 sale of spurious drugs. In this case the complainant failed to prove that seized drug is spurious drug.
32. It appears that in the manufacturing process, there occur some defects in the label such as font size, colour etc and they being pushed to the market with connivance of the officials of the company through distributor like accused. Had the drugs in dispute are not the product of the purported company, then certainly drugs wouldn't have withstand the analytical test and concerned company would not have kept quite. The complainant instead of looking in to that aspect proceeded to investigate on the assumption that they are the spurious drugs. Thus, the court is of the considered view that the complainant failed to prove that seized drugs from the residence of accused is not manufactured by the companies which are purported to be the manufacturers and the accused contravened Sec. 18(a)(i) Act. Thus, the question of they committing the 37 CC.No.948-07 offence punishable u/s.27 (©) of the Act, not arises. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative.
33. Point No.4: The complainant succeeded in proving that the drugs mentioned in Form No.16 marked as Ex.p.1 were seized from the residence of the accused. The complainant case is that the accused not disclosed names, address and other particulars of the person form whom he acquired the drugs. Sec.18A of the Act, casts the responsibility on the person other than the manufacturer or his agent to disclose the Inspector, the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drugs. Here, the accused is neither manufacturer or nor the agent for the distribution of the manufactures.
34. The documents on record disclose that the Drug Inspector did issue a notice u/s.18A of the Act to disclose the above particulars. The said notices were served on the accused, but, he has not disclosed the 38 CC.No.948-07 source of acquisition. In the statement is marked as Ex.p.4, it is only stated that the drugs were purchased at Nagapur. The accused not furnished the address and other particulars of the supplier. In the ruling reported in 2012 (2) ALD (Cri.) 26, wherein, at Para No.9 held that "on the basis of vague plea, not supported by any material, the accused cannot be held to have complied the required envisaged u/s.18A of the Act. Thus, without much discussed, I hold that the complainant has succeed in proving that the accused by not disclosing the name, address and other particulars of the person from whom he acquired the drugs, contravened the provision of Sec.18A of the Act and that resulted in commission of offence punishable u/s. 28 of the Act. Accordingly, this point is answered in affirmative.
35. Point No.5: It is alleged that the accused not disclosed the place where the drugs were manufactured and kept in respect of drugs seized under Form No.16 39 CC.No.948-07 and that resulted in contravention of Sec. 24 of the Act. Sec. 24 of the Act says that every person for the time being in charge of any premises wherein any drugs or cosmetics is being manufactured or is kept for sale or distribution, on being required by an inspector so to do, be legally bound to disclose to the Inspector the place where the drug or being manufactured or is kept, as the case may be.
36. Here, the accused himself kept the drugs for distribution in the premises for distribution and the failure to disclose the above said particulars amounts to contravention of Sec.24 of the Act applies to the person other than those who kept the drugs. For example i.e., other owner or the person in charge of the premises. Thus, the provision not applies to the person who actually stocked the drugs for sale in the premises taken on rent. Thus, the contention of the complainant that the accused has committed the offence under section 24 of 40 CC.No.948-07 the Act is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, this point is answered in negative.
37. Point No.6: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted from the offences u/s.18 (a)(i), R/w.S17B(e) and 24 of the Act, which are punishable u/s.27(c) and 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offences u/s.18© and 18A of the Act, which are punishable u/s. 27(b) (ii) and 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
To hear regarding sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her corrected and then nd pronounced by me, in open court on this the 2 day of April - 2018.) PRESIDING OFFICER.41 CC.No.948-07
ORDER ON SENTENCE
38. Heard the accused, the learned counsel of accused & I/c. Sr. A.P.P.
39. The accused submitted that he is suffering from ill-
health and faced the trial for a decade. His father is heart patient and he is having the responsibility of maintaining age old parents. Accused further submitted that his wife is pregnant and at present he is earning his livelihood by doing the work of building supervision. The learned counsel of the accused argued that proved offence was punishable with one year or fine up to Rs. 5,000/-. It is argued that the drug is not spurious, thus, prayed to award only fine and impose the sentence for the period already undergone. The learned I/c. Sr.A.P.P., argued that the accused committed serious offences, though, the complainant failed to prove the other offence. Thus, prayed to award maximum punishment.
42 CC.No.948-07
40. Accused was in J.C. from 07.05.2005 to 09.05.2005. Later, the presence of the accused was secured through body warrant as on 10.09.2009 and he was granted bail on 24.11.2009. His father is heart patient and wife is pregnant and doing the Building supervision works. The complainant failed to prove that seized drugs are spurious. The keeping of the drugs in unlicensed premises not so serious offence. The non- compliance of required u/s.18A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 appears to be unintentional. The case has been taken too long time to reach the conclusion. Accused is having the family to maintain. At this stage, if accused is asked to undergo substantial punishment, his family members will suffer. Accused submitted that he would lead the decent and will not involve criminal activities. Considering all these aspects, I hold that maximum fine and the period already undergone by the accused in judicial custody has to 43 CC.No.948-07 awarded as sentence. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is sentenced to under go imprisonment for the period which he was in custody i.e., three days and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for having committed the offences punishable u/s. 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and in default to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for having committed the offences punishable u/s. 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and in default to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Bail bond of the accused stand cancelled. The samples identified as Mos.1 to 39 are to be returned to the complainant to dispose off the same in accordance with law after the expiry of appeal period. (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, typed by her corrected and then nd pronounced by me, in open court on this the 2 day of April - 2018.) PRESIDING OFFICER.44 CC.No.948-07
ANNEXURE:
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: WITNESSES:
P.w.1 - S. Nagaraju, P.w.2 - Suresh .M, P.w.3 - Nilesh Mohan Lal Gandhi, P.w.4 - P.V. Kanitkar, P.w.5 - H. Srinivasa, P.w.6 - Amitabha Kundu, P.w.7 - Smt. C. Manjula, P.w.8 - Shankar Naik, P.w.9 - Vijaya Kashiram Ghodge, P.w.10 - B. Sripathi Rao, P.w.11 - K.B. Loknath, P.w.12 - Ananda Karbelkar, P.w.13 - Smt. Jayashree Nair, P.w.14 - Ansari, P.w.15 - G.V.Narayana Reddy, P.w.16 - Rajashekara Malli, P.w.17 - P.M.Patil, P.w.18 - Jayant D. Patwardhan, P.w.19 - S.Ramakrishna Gandhi, P.w.20 - Sreedhara D.V., P.w.21 - C.M.Shiva Kumar, P.w.22 - Smt.Yashoda S.V., P.w.23 - Saleem Veljee, P.w.24 - C.D.Shelat, P.w.25 - Pradeep G. Dosi, P.w.26 - R.S.Mungarwadi.
DOCUMENTS:
Ex.p.1 - Panchanama, Ex.p.1 - (a) Sign. of P.W.1, Ex.p.1 - (b) Sign. of Accused, Ex.p.1 - (c) Sign. of C.W.6, 45 CC.No.948-07 Ex.p.1 - (d) Sign. of C.W.7, Ex.p.1 - (e) Sign. of Pw-7, Ex.p.1 - (f) Sign. of Pw-8, Ex.p.2 - Form No.16, Ex.p.2 - (a) Sign. of P.W.1, Ex.p.2 - (b) Sign. of Accused, Ex.p.2 - (c) Sign. of C.W.6, Ex.p.2 - (d) Sign. of C.W.7, Ex.p.2 - (e) Sign. of Pw-7, Ex.p.2 - (f) Sign. of Pw-8, Ex.p.3 - Statement of Accused, Ex.p.3 - (a) Sign. of Accused, Ex.p.4 - Translated Statement, Ex.p.4 - (a) Sign. of Accused, Ex.p.5 - O/c of Complaint, Ex.p.5 - (a) Sign. of P.W.1, Ex.p.6 - A/c of Report, Ex.p.7 - O/c of Notice, Ex.p.7 - (a) Sign. of P.W.1, Ex.p.8 - Acknowledgement, Ex.p.9 - Letter, Ex.p.10 - O/c of FIR, Ex.p.11 - O/c Case Diary, Ex.p.12 - O/c of Reminder, Ex.p.12 - (a) Sign. of P.W.1, Ex.p.13 - Acknowledgement, Ex.p.14 - O/c of Letter, Ex.p.14 - (a) Sign. of P.W.1, Ex.p.15 - O/c of Letter, Ex.p.15 - (a) Sign. of P.W.1, Ex.p.16 - O/c of Letter, Ex.p.17 - O/c of Letter, Ex.p.18 - Statement dtd:12/5/2005, Ex.p.19 - A/c of Circular, Ex.p.20 - A/c of Circular, Ex.p.21 - A/c of Circular, 46 CC.No.948-07 Ex.p.22 - O/c of Letter, Ex.p.23 - Letter dtd:20/7/2005, Ex.p.24 - O/c of CTC, Ex.p.25 - O/c of List of Property, Ex.p.26 - O/c of Letter, Ex.p.27 - Letter, Ex.p.27 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-3, Ex.p.27 - (b) Sign. Of Pw-4, Ex.p.28 - Report, Ex.p.28 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-4, Ex.p.29 - o/c of Letter, dtd:10/9/2007, Ex.p.29 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.30 - Letter dtd:30/5/2007, Ex.p.30 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.31 - Acknowledgment, Ex.p.32 - Letter dtd:06/6/2007, Ex.p.32 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.33 - Letter, Ex.p.33 - (a) Sign. of Pw-14, Ex.p.33 - (b) Sign. of Pw-25, Ex.p.34 - Letter dtd:13.6.05, Ex.p.35 - Letter, Ex.p.35 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.35 - (b) Sign. of Pw-24, Ex.p.36 - Report, Ex.p.36 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.37 - Letter.
Ex.p.37 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.38 - Letter.
Ex.p.38 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.38 - (a) Sign. of Pw-20, Ex.p.39 - C/c of Form-19, Ex.p.40 - C/c of Addl. information sheet, Ex.p.41 - C/c of Drug licence in Form-20B, Ex.p.42 - C/c of Drug licence in Form 21B, Ex.p.43 - C/c of Constitutional details, 47 CC.No.948-07 Ex.p.44 - Sanction order dtd:9/10/2014, Ex.p.44 - (a) Sign. of Pw-10, Ex.p.45 - Complaint, Ex.p.45 - (a) Sign. Of Pw-2, Ex.p.46 - Report, Ex.p.46 - (a) Sign. of Pw-18, Ex.p.46 - (b) Sign. of Pw-18, Ex.p.46 - (c) Sign. of Pw-18, Ex.p.46 - (d) Sign. of Pw-18, Ex.p.47 - Letter dtd:7/6/2005, Ex.p.48 - Report, Ex.p.49 - Letter, dtd:24/5/2005, Ex.p.49 - (a) Sign. of Pw-26, Ex.p.50 - Report, Ex.p.50 - (a) Sign. of Pw-26, Ex.p.51 - Report, Ex.p.52 - Letter, Ex.p.53 - Report, Ex.p.54 - Letter, Ex.p.54 - (a) Sign. of Pw-23, Ex.p.55 - Report, Ex.p.56 - Letter, Ex.p.57 - C/c of Authorization Letter, Ex.p.58 - C/c of Comparison Statement, Ex.p.59 - C/c of Covering Letter, Ex.p.60 - C/c of Covering Letter, Ex.p.61 - C/c of Physical Report, Ex.p.61 - (a) Relevant Entry in Ex.P.61, Ex.p.62 - C/c of Chemical Report, Ex.p.62 - (a) Relevant Entry in Ex.P.62, Ex.p.63 - C/c of Statement, Ex.p.64 - C/c of Annexure, Ex.p.65 - C/c of Certificate of Analysis, Ex.p.66 - Letter dtd:14/6/2005, Ex.p.66 - (a) Sign. of Pw-13, Ex.p.66 - (b) Sign. of Pw-17, 48 CC.No.948-07 Ex.p.67 - Comparative Statement, Ex.p.67 - (a) Sign. of Pw-13, Ex.p.68 - Statement of Cw-32, Ex.p.68 - (a) Sign. of Pw-14, Ex.p.69 - Annexure, Ex.p.70 - Observation St./Appendix-I, Ex.p.71 - Certificate of Analysis, Ex.p.72 - Statement, Ex.p.72 - (a) Sign of Pw-14, Ex.p.73 - Verification Statement, Ex.p.73 - (a) Sign. of Pw-14, Ex.p.74 - Statement, Ex.p.74 - (a) Sign. of Pw-14, Ex.p.75 - Certificate of Analysis, Ex.p.76 - Statement, Ex.p.76 - (a) Sign. of Pw-15, Ex.p.77 - Copy of St. & Analytical, Ex.p.78 - Statement, Ex.p.78 - (a) Sign of Pw-17, Ex.p.79 - C/c of Order, Ex.p.80 - Letter, Ex.p.80 - (a) Sign. of Pw-21, Ex.p.81 - X/c of Letter, Ex.p.82 - X/c of Analytical Report.
MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Mo.1 - 1 Stripx10 tabs of Overan SR-100, B.No.49011H, Mo.2 - 1 Bottlex100 tabs of Eptoin-100 mg, B.No.QC021, Mo.3 - 1 Bottlex100 tabs of Eptoin-100 mg, B.No.QC034, Mo.4 - 1 Stripx10 tabs of Unicontin, B.No.M-4072, Mo.5 - 1 Box of 6 x10 ml vials of Neuroxin Injection, B.No.I-4095, Mo.6 - 1 Tube of Propygenta Cream 20 gm, B.No.192, Mo.7 - 1 Combipackx2stripsx10's tablets of Dolonex DT, Lot.No.420-04048, 49 CC.No.948-07 Mo.8 - 1 Strip x 4 tablets of Augmentin 1000 Duo, B.No.MS-135, Mo.9 - 1 Strip x 6 tablets of Augmentin 625 Duo, B.No.MS 174, Mo.10 - 1 Combipack x6 strips x10's tablets of Lorvas, B.No.B3414003, Mo.11 - 1 Strip x10 tablets of Primolut-N, B.No.R 1033, Mo.12 - 1 Strip x10 tablets of OF-400, B.No.A5002, Mo.13 - 1 strip x 10's capsules of Sporidex 500, B.No.9121326, Mo.14 - 6 Strips(combipack of 6x10's)x10's tablets of Alprax 0.5, B.No.5704004, Mo.15 - 1Combipack x 6 strips x10 tablets of Alprax 0.5, B.No.1073020, Mo.16 - 1x10 x 2 ml Injection of Ketmin 50, B.No.TG-241, Mo.17 - 1 Combipack x 6 strips x10 tablets of Alprax 0.25, B.No.1083013, Mo.18 - 1 Combipack x 6 strips x10 tablets of Alprax 0.25, B.No.5694004, Mo.19 - 1 Strip x10 tablets of PAN 40, B.No.PNTF-4006A, Mo.20 - 1 Combipack x 2 strips x10 tablets of Entero Quinol, B.No.4223, Mo.21 - 1 Combipack x 6 strips x10 tablets of Norflox-400, B.No.G44052, Mo.22 - 1 Strip x10 tablets of ENAM 5 mg, B.No.Y4001, Mo.23 - 1Combipack x 5 strips x 10 tablets of Oxalgin DP, B.No. RTD1269, Mo.24 - 1 Strip x 4 tablets of Tadacip-10, B.No.G44535, Mo.25 - 1 Combipack x 2 strips x 10 capsules of Depicar 5, B.No.G017203, Mo.26 - 1 Combipack x 5 strip x 10 tablets of Domstal, B.No.1202004, Mo.27 - 1 Strip x 10 tablets of Oflox-400, B.No.G44258, Mo.28 - 1 Combipackx 5 strips x 10 tablets of Regestrone 5 mg, B.No.RG4F09D, Mo.29 - 1 Strips x 10 tablets of Regestrone 5 mg, 50 CC.No.948-07 B.No.RG4H15D, Mo.30 - 1 Strip x 10 tablets of Regestrone 5 mg, B.No. RG4G11D, Mo.31 - 1 Strip x 10 tablets of Cetzine, B.No. L117, Mo.32 - 1 Strip x 10 tablets of Cetzine, B.No. L125, Mo.33 - 1 Combipack x 5 strips x 10 tablets of Stemetil 5, B.No.EC4007, Mo.34 - 1 Combipack x 5 strips x 10 tablets of Stemetil 5, B.No.N3008, Mo.35 - 1 Strip x 6 tablets of Norflox-TZ, B.No.T40091, Mo.36 - Complaint Sample, Mo.37 - Control Sample, Mo.38 - Complaint Sample, Mo.39 - Control Sample.
ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: Witnesses & Documents: Nil.
(SHANTHANNA ALVA M.) PRESIDING OFFICER, SPL.COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE.51 CC.No.948-07
02.04.2018:
Complt., - D.I., Accused - A.N.N., For Judgment.
(Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted from the offences u/s.18 (a)(i), R/w.S17B(e) and 24 of the Act, which are punishable u/s.27(c) and 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
By exercising the power conferred u/s. 248 (2) of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offences u/s.18© and 18A of the Act, which are punishable u/s.
27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
To hear regarding sentence.
PRESIDING OFFICER.
52 CC.No.948-07(Orders regarding sentence pronounced in open court vide separate order) ORDER The accused is sentenced to under go imprisonment for the period which he was in custody i.e., three days and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- for having committed the offences punishable u/s. 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and in default to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The accused is sentence to pay fine of Rs.
5000/- for having committed the offences punishable u/s. 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and in default to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Bail bond of the accused stand cancelled. The samples identified as Mos.1 to 39 are to be returned to the complainant to dispose off the same in accordance with law after the expiry of appeal period.
PRESIDING OFFICER.