Delhi District Court
State Through Ranbir Singh (Di) vs . Virender Kumar. on 14 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State through Ranbir Singh (DI) Vs. Virender Kumar.
CC No. 77/4/86.
FIR No. 283/85
U/s. 18(a)(ii)/27A(i) &
18(c)/27 (b) (ii), 18 (a)
(i)/section 27 (c) & section
27 (d) & U/s. 18A r/w
section 28 of Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940
PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 80/4.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02401R0003331990.
c) The date of commission of the : 26/07/1985.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 24/07/1986.
e) The name of the complainant : Sh. Ranbir Singh,
Drug Inspector.
f) The name & address of accused : Virender Kumar S/o.
Sh. Har Gopal, R/o 2115,
Gali Ashok, Bahadur
Garh Road, Sadar Bazar,
Delhi.
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 18(a)(ii)/27A(i) &
18(c)/27 (b) (ii), 18 (a)
(i)/section 27 (c) &
section 27 (d) & U/s. 18A
CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85
PS Sadar Bazar 1
r/w section 28 of Drugs
& Cosmetics Act, 1940.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty.
i) The date of reserving the order : 02/05/2011.
j) The final order : Convicted.
k) The date of such order : 14/05/2011.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The present judgment shall dispose of the complaint case filed by DI Ranbir Singh and the State case in case FIR No. 283/85, PS Sadar Bazar as both the cases pertain to the same facts and common evidence was led in both the cases.
Brief resume of facts of the case are that on 26/07/1985 at about 8.00 AM, DI Ranbir Singh alongwith DI A.K. Sagar and public witness Sh. Raj Kumar inspected the premises of accused i.e. M/s. New Virender General Store, situated at 5431A/1, New Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, where the accused was found stocking and exhibiting for sale and distribution Boroline Antiseptic Cream, Nycil Prickly Heat Powder, Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make Up and Lakme Face Powder. Upon verification, it was discovered that CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 2 the accused had stocked and exhibited the said drug and cosmetic items for sale without having the requisite licence. Thereafter, all the available stock of drug and cosmetics were seized by the concerned Drug Inspector. A complaint in this regard was also made to the police, on the basis of which an FIR No. 283/85 was registered at PS Sadar Bazar. Upon investigation, it was further discovered that all the drugs and cosmetics items seized from the premises of the accused were spurious, whereas the stock of Nycil Prickly Heat Powder was not of standard quality. After completion of proceedings by the Drug Department, the complaint was filed in court by the concerned Drug Inspector. As per the then prevailing practice, the police had handed over the police challan to the concerned drug inspector, after completion of police investigation. The copy of police challan was filed in the court for trial by the concerned Drug Inspector, through a separate complaint.
2. As the complaint was filed by the concerned DI in capacity of a public servant, the court observed that there was no need to examine him U/s. 200 CrPC and vide order dated 24/07/1986, the court had summoned the accused. On appearance of accused, the complete set of copies of the case were CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 3 supplied to him.
3. The complainant DI Ranbir Singh had examined himself in precharge evidence as CW.1 on 06/03/1989 and thereafter the precharge evidence was closed by him.
4. After hearing arguments on charge, charge was framed against the accused for trial of offences U/s. 18(a)(ii)/27A(i) & 18(c)/27 (b) (ii), 18 (a) (i)/section 27 (c) & section 27 (d) & U/s. 18A r/w section 28 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 by my Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. After framing of charge, the complainant in support of present case had adopted his precharge testimony, given as PW.1. He was crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused during the post charge evidence. The complainant had examined PW.2 DI A.K. Sagar and public witness PW3 Raj Kumar, both of whom had accompanied the complainant/PW1 to the shop of the accused for inspection. PW4 is N.K. Gaur, LDC in Drugs Control Department, who produced the office register for the year 198586, containing the details of the CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 4 samples drawn by complainant DI Ranbir Singh vide Sr. No. 268 and 269 of the register. The said samples were sent to Govt. Analyst at Banglore for testing. PW.5 is M.K. Mukharjee, who appeared on behalf of M/s. G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Sahibabad, U.P., to prove the letter Ex. PW1/V dated 13/08/1986, written by Mr. R.N. Mukharjee on behalf of M/s. G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., to DI Ranbir Singh. As per letter Ex. PW1/V, the stock of Boroline cream recovered from the possession of the accused was not manufactured by M/s. G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which was licenced to manufacture Boroline cream. PW.6 is IO SI Rajender Prasad, who visited the spot after registration of FIR and prepared the site plan. PW6 deposed about recording of the statement of witnesses Raj Kumar and DI A.K. Sagar and arresting of the accused, present in the court. At the time of his deposition, PW6 IO SI Rajender, for the first time, deposited the original police charge sheet Ex. PW6/A, site plan of the spot Ex. PW6/B, seizure memo Ex. PW6/C and personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW6/D, in the court. Ld. Defence counsel objected to the filing of the documents Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D by PW6 at the time of his deposition in the court. Till the deposition of PW6, only photocopies of the said documents were filed in CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 5 the judicial record.
6. Statement of accused was recorded separately U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein he pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. He wished to lead D.E. and examined one Suresh Chand as DW.1 in support of his defence.
7. DW.1 Suresh Chand deposed that he runs a shop neighbouring to the shop of the accused in Sadar Bazar. He deposed that on 26/07/1985, the accused came to his shop at about 10.30 AM - 11.00 AM and before the accused could open his shop, he was taken to police station by some police officials and one Sardar ji. He deposed that the said officials did not disclose any reason for taking accused Virender Kumar with them.
8. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused and from complainant DI Ranbir Singh and have also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 6
9. To prove the offences U/s. 18(a)(ii)/27A(i) & 18(c)/27 (b) (ii), 18 (a)
(i)/section 27 (c) & section 27 (d) & U/s. 18A r/w section 28 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, it was incumbent upon the complainant DI and the State to prove that accused was found stocking and exhibiting for sale and distribution the stock of spurious Boroline Antiseptic Cream, Nycil Prickly Heat Powder, Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make Up and Lakme Face Powder without having the requisite licence and without any purchase bills and that the seized drug Nycil Prickly Heat Powder was not of standard quality.
10.The most material witness in this case is the complainant himself, who had inspected the premises of the accused along with other witnesses i.e. PW2 DI A.K. Sagar and PW3 Raj Kumar and recovered the spurious drugs and cosmetics. PW.1 DI Ranbir Singh has deposed that on 26/07/1985 at about 8.00 AM, he along with above said witnesses, inspected the premises of accused Virender Kumar, present in court. He deposed that upon inspection, accused was found stocking and exhibiting for sale and distribution the trade stock of drugs namely Boroline Antiseptic Cream and Nycil Prickly Heat Powder and the cosmetics namely Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make Up and CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 7 Lakme Face Powder and other trade stocks. He deposed that samples of drug Boroline Cream and Nycil Prickly Heat Powder were taken for test as per procedure and form17 was prepared, which is Ex. PW1/A, bearing the signature of the accused. Cost of the sample was paid to the accused vide cash memo Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that, on demand, the accused failed to produce any drug licence and the purchase bills for the items found in his shop. He deposed that the drug and cosmetics items found in the shop appeared to be of doubtful quality and were seized vide recovery memo Ex. PW1/C. He deposed that form16 was prepared at the spot by him, regarding the recovery of the drugs and cosmetics from the possession of the accused, which was signed by the accused and the same is Ex. PW1/D. He deposed that the accused Virender Kumar issued a letter dated 26/07/1985 in his own handwriting to the Drug Inspector regarding the inspection of his shop and the taking of the samples from his shop. The said letter is Ex. PW1/E. He deposed that one letter dated 26/07/1985 addressed by DI Ranbir Singh to SHO PS Sadar Bazar, requesting for the registration of case against accused Virender Kumar is Ex. PW1/F. The copy of FIR No. 283/85, PS Sadar Bazar is mark A. The permission taken by DI Ranbir Singh from Ld. CMM/Delhi CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 8 to retain the seized articles in his custody is Ex. PW1/G. PW1 deposed that one sealed sample portion of Boroline Antiseptic Cream and Nycil Prickly Heat Powder were sent to Govt. Analyst, Banglore for the purpose of test analysis by registered post parcel alongwith memos on form18 for the two drugs. The said memos on form18 are Ex. PW1/H and Ex. PW1/J. The report of Govt. Analyst that the Boroline Antiseptic Cream was of standard quality is Ex. PW1/K, whereas the report of Govt. Analyst that Nycil Prickly Heat Powder was not of standard quality is Ex. PW1/L. The letters were sent by PW1 to the accused alongwith copies of the test reports. The said letters are Ex. PW1/M and Ex. PW1/N. DI Ranbir Singh also issued memo U/s. 18A of Drug and Cosmetics Act to the accused requiring him to disclose the name and particulars of the person from whom his firm had acquired the drugs and cosmetics. The said letter is Ex. PW1/O. The accused sent a letter dated 28/07/1985 Ex. PW1/P to the Drug Inspector regarding the receipt of the letters Ex. PW1/M to Ex. PW1/O from the drug inspector. The letter dated 05/02/1986 was issued by Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd., to DI Ranbir Singh to inform that the sealed sample of Nycil Prickly Heat Powder recovered from the possession of the accused was not manufactured by Glaxo CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 9 Laboratories India Ltd., which was licensed to manufacture it. The said letter is Ex. PW1/Q. Similarly, a letter Ex. PW1/S dated 19/04/1986 was issued by Lakme India Ltd., to DI Ranbir Singh that the samples of Lakme Face Powder and Lakme Liquid Make Up, recovered from the possession of the accused, were not genuine and were not manufactured by the said company. The letter issued by DI Ranbir Singh to M/s. G.D. Pharmaceuticals, Ghaziabad for verification of genuineness of sealed sample portion of Boroline Cream, recovered from the possession of the accused, is Ex. PW1/T. The letter Ex. PW1/V, dated 13/08/1986, was issued by G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., to DI Ranbir Singh to inform that the Boroline Cream, recovered from the possession of the accused was not manufactured by the said company, which is licensed to manufacture it. The sealed sample portions of Boroline Cream were produced in the court as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2, whereas the sealed sample portion of Nycil Prickly Heat Powder was produced as Ex. P3 and Ex. P4. The specimen portion of Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make Up and Lakme Face Powder were produced in the court as Ex. P5 and Ex. P6 respectively. The entire case property was also produced in the court as per CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 10 seizure memo Ex. PW1/C and after production, the entire case property was put back in a cardboard box and was sealed with the seal of Court. The complaint filed by Drug Inspector is Ex. PW1/W. All the entire above said deposition and the production of sealed samples and the case property had taken place during the pre charge evidence by PW1 DI Ranbir Singh. PW1 was not cross examined by the accused during his pre charge evidence and the accused reserved his right to cross examine the witness after the charge.
PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused during after charge evidence. In his cross examination, PW1 replied that he started from the Drugs Control Office at about 7:00 AM alongwith DI Ashok Kumar. He deposed that public witness Raj Kumar met him in Sadar Bazar. PW1 replied that he visited the premises of the accused at 8:00 AM and found it open. He replied that he did not remember if the neighbouring shops had opened. He replied that no other shopkeeper from the market was called as other shops were closed. He replied that no other customer was present at the shop of the accused. He further replied that he took about one and half hour in the shop of the accused to complete the proceedings. PW1 denied the CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 11 suggestion that the premises in question was a godown meant for storing medicines and that it was opened by him. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accused was forced to issue a cash memo for the payment given to him. PW1 finally denied the suggestion that godown of the accused was forcibly opened and accused was forced to issue cash memo.
PW2 DI A.K. Sagar corroborated PW1 regarding the conducting of inspection at the premises of the accused on 26/07/1985. He also corroborated PW1 about the stocking of drugs and cosmetics for sale by the accused without holding any license. He also deposed about taking of the samples of Borolin Cream and Nycil Prickly Heat Powder for testing by DI Ranbir Singh. He deposed that form17 Ex. PW1/A was prepared at the spot, which bears his signature. In short, PW2 deposed on the same line and length, as was deposed by PW1 about the conducting of proceedings at the premises of the accused and about the recovery of the case property.
PW2 was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel. What was answered differently by PW2 than PW1 in cross examination was that he replied that customers were coming in and going from the shop of the accused at the time of inspection. He replied that customers were also present CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 12 during the inquiry. He replied that some nearby shops were open at that time but he did not know if any shopkeeper was called to join the proceedings. He replied that no police official had accompanied him and PW1 to the shop of the accused. He denied the suggestion that before going to the shop of the accused, they went to PS Sadar Bazar and took the police force from there. He denied the suggestion that he and PW1 forcibly got the shop opened. He also denied the suggestion that it was not a shop but was only a godown. He finally denied the suggestion that the accused was forced to prepare the cash bill Ex. PW1/B or to issue the letter Ex. PW1/E to DI Ranbir Singh. No case property or seized samples were produced during the examination of PW2, neither was any question asked by Ld. Defence counsel in cross examination of PW2 about the case property.
PW3 Raj Kumar is the public witness, who deposed that on 26/07/1985 at about 8.00 AM, he went to the shop of the accused alongwith DI Ranbir Singh and DI A.K. Sagar and remained there for inspection till 10.00 AM. He deposed that in his presence samples of Boroline Antiseptic Cream, Nycil Prickly Heat Powder, Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make Up and Lakme Face Powder were taken from the shop of the accused. He deposed CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 13 that he signed on the form17 Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo Ex. PW1/C and on form16 Ex. PW1/D. This testimony of PW3 was recorded on 06/12/1993 and the same was deferred as the case property was not traceable. The court ahlmad was directed to trace the case property and further examination in chief was adjourned for next date. PW3 was again examined on 29/07/2002 and it was observed that the case property of this case had gone missing, not to be found again. PW3 was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
11.Regarding the investigation of the case, IO SI Rajender Prasad was examined as PW6. He deposed that on 26/07/1985 the investigation of this case was handed over to him. He deposed that he obtained the copies of recovery memo, form16 and form17 through a seizure memo. He deposed that he visited the spot and prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of witnesses Raj Kumar and DI A.K. Sagar. He deposed that he arrested the accused and obtained the report of public analyst on samples, through DI Ranbir Singh. He deposed that he prepared the challan in this case and same sent to DI Ranbir Singh through a road certificate. At the time of his CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 14 deposition, PW6 IO SI Rajender for the first time deposited the police charge sheet Ex. PW6/A, site plan of the spot Ex. PW6/B, seizure memo Ex. PW6/C, personal search memo of the accused Ex. PW6/D, in the court. Ld. Defence counsel objected to the filing of the documents Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/D by PW6 at the time of his deposition in the court. Till the deposition of PW6, only photocopies of the said documents were filed in the judicial record. The cross examination of this witness was deferred for the next date but he did not appear again in the court for cross examination by the accused. Thus, his testimony remains incomplete and cannot be read in evidence against the accused.
12.Ld. defence counsel has argued that the case property and sealed samples were not produced before the court during the post charge evidence, due to which the case property and sealed samples cannot be considered in evidence against the accused. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that in view of the testimony of DW1 Suresh Chand it is clear that the accused was not found stocking and exhibiting for sale any drug or cosmetics and nothing was recovered from his possession. He argues that accused has been implicated in CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 15 a false case by PW1 DI Ranbir Singh and the IO SI Rajender. Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that since the testimony of PW6 remained incomplete, the police investigation and police challan cannot be read in evidence against the accused, due to which the case remained unproved against the accused.
Per contra, Ld. APP has argued that PW1 DI Ranbir Singh is empowered to launch independent prosecution against the accused, and to file the complaint, due to which incomplete testimony of PW6 IO SI Rajender is inconsequential and does not help the defence of the accused. Ld. APP has argued that PWs No. 1 to 6 have proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Indeed, original police challan was filed for the first time in the court during the deposition of PW6 whose testimony remained incomplete, and, indeed the case property was not available for production in the court during the deposition of PW3 Raj Kumar. However, as per record of this case, the case property and the sealed samples were already produced and exhibited during the pre charge testimony of PW1 DI Ranbir Singh. When PW1 was cross examined during post charge evidence by Ld. Defence CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 16 counsel, not a single question was asked by Ld. Defence counsel to PW1 DI Ranbir Singh about the case property, neither was the case property called for production in the court by Ld. Defence counsel. Similarly, during the deposition of PW2 DI A.K. Sagar in the court, no case property or sealed samples were called for production in the court, either at the time of examination in chief or during the cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel. Moreover, not a single question was asked by Ld. Defence counsel to PW2 DI A.K. Sagar about the case property and sealed samples. In the daily order sheets regarding the dates when PW1 and PW2 were examined in the court in their post charge evidence, it is nowhere mentioned that the case property is not traceable or not available for production in the court. On 06/12/1993, it was for the first time during the deposition of PW3 Raj Kumar in the court, it was observed that the case property was not traceable.
PW1 DI Ranbir Singh, PW2 DI A.K. Sagar and PW3 Raj Kumar had together inspected the shop of the accused on 26/07/1985 at 8:00 AM. PW1 and PW2 have deposed that accused Virender Kumar was found stocking and exhibiting for sale and distribution Boroline Antiseptic Cream and Nycil Prickly Heat Powder drugs and Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 17 Up and Lakme Face Powder cosmetics item without holding any drug licence. PW2 and PW3 have deposed that in their presence PW1 had taken the samples of the drugs and cosmetics from the shop of the accused. The said witnesses have also signed the memos prepared by PW1 DI Ranbir Singh at the spot. PW4 has proved that the sealed samples of drugs and cosmetics were received in the Drugs Control Office and they were sent for testing to Govt. Analyst, Banglore. PW5 has proved that the letter Ex. PW1/V dated 13/08/1986 addressed by the concerned officer of G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., to PW1 DI Ranbir Singh. In essence, the said letter proves that the Boroline Cream recovered from the possession of the accused is spurious, as it was not manufactured by G.D. Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which is licenced to manufacture it. The letter Ex. PW1/S issued by the concerned officer of Lakme Ltd., proves that the cosmetics item i.e. Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make Up and Lakme Face Powder, recovered from the possession of the accused, were spurious and were not manufactured by Lakme Ltd., which is licenced to manufacture it. The letter Ex. PW1/Q, dated 05/02/1986, addressed by the concerned officer of Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. to PW1 DI Ranbir Singh proves that drug Nycil Prickly Heat Powder recovered from CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 18 the possession of the accused is spurious and was not manufactured by Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd., which is licenced to manufacture it. The report of public analyst Ex. PW1/L proves that the drug Nycil Prickly Heat Powder, recovered from the possession of the accused, was not of standard quality.
The non completion of the examination of PW6 is not material and does not avail the accused because the PW1 DI Ranbir Singh was himself empowered to independently launch prosecution against the accused. DI Ranbir Singh has successfully proved the entire complaint case against the accused through the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The evidence of DW1 Suresh Chand does not seem trustworthy and seems to be inspired by an after thought. DW1 was examined by the accused in the court on 25/04/2011 i.e. around 26 years after the incident. Despite this fact, DW1 was able to disclose the precise date of 26/07/1985, when the accused was allegedly picked up by some police officials and one Sardar Ji and was taken to police station. Moreover, he had deposed that on 26/07/1985 at about 10:30 - 11:00 AM , even before the accused could open his shop some police officials and one Sardar Ji came there and took the accused with them. DW1 has deposed that he had observed this as his shop is CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 19 near to the shop of the accused in Sadar Bazar. However, DW1 did not produce any proof that he had a shop near to the shop of the accused. DW1 also did not reveal what was the occasion for him to watch who was coming and going at the shop of the accused. In this case, PWs No. 1, 2 and 3 have deposed that the inspection was conducted by two drug inspectors and one public witness, none of whom was a police official. Thus, the testimony of DW1 does not inspire trust and is not worthy of credit.
13.Hence, in view of the above observation and discussion and the evidence on record, in my opinion, the present case has successfully been proved against the accused beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt that the accused was found stocking and exhibiting for sale and distribution the stock of spurious Boroline Antiseptic Cream, Nycil Prickly Heat Powder, Lakme Satin Glow Liquid Make Up and Lakme Face Powder without having the requisite licence and without any purchase bills and that the seized drug Nycil Prickly Heat Powder was not of standard quality, and that the accused failed to disclose the name of the person from whom he had acquired the said drugs and cosmetics. Therefore, I hereby hold the accused guilty for the offence CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 20 U/s. 18(a)(ii)/27A(i) & 18(c)/27 (b) (ii), 18 (a) (i)/section 27 (c) & section 27
(d) & U/s. 18A r/w section 28 of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and convict him accordingly. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 14/05/2011. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 + 1) Delhi
CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85
PS Sadar Bazar 21
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State through Ranbir Singh (DI) Vs. Virender Kumar.
CC No. 77/4/86.
FIR No. 283/85
U/s. 18(a)(ii)/27A(i) &
18(c)/27 (b) (ii), 18 (a)
(i)/section 27 (c) & section
27 (d) & U/s. 18A r/w
section 28 of Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940
PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Sh. Ranbir Singh, Drug Inspector.
Accused/convict Virender Kumar is present on bail with Counsel. I have heard arguments on the point of sentence from DI Ranbir Singh, Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for accused. It is stated that accused is facing trial from last 25 years. It is further stated that there is no record of any previous conviction against him. It is further stated that accused is a heart patient, having one son of the marriageable age and wife, who are dependent upon him. It is prayed that the accused may kindly be released on probation by this court.
On the other hand, it is stated by DI Ranbir Singh, present on behalf of complainant and by Ld. APP that the only fact that it is an old case does not CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 22 entitle the convict for any lenient view. It is further stated by him that convict deserves maximum punishment for the offences committed by him.
It is true on the one hand that there is no record of previous conviction against the accused and he is facing trial since 1986, but on the other hand, the accused was apprehended while stocking and exhibiting for sale and distribution various spurious drugs and cosmetics without holding any drugs licence. The offence committed by the accused not only have grave social repercussion upon the consumers who were using it believing it to be a genuine product but there is also heavy revenue loss to the company having licence to manufactured the same, thereby affecting the economy of the country. Moreover, the spurious and not of standard quality drugs and cosmetics, recovered from the possession of the accused were a potential hazard to the health of potential purchasers. Hence, keeping in view the facts of the case, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where probation may be granted to the accused. I hereby sentence the accused for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18 (a) (ii)/27A(i) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 23 U/s. 18 (c) /27 (b) (ii) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18 (a)
(i) /27 (c) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is sentenced for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18 (a) (i) /27 (d) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is further sentenced for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18A/28 of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ i.d. to undergo two months simple imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict and any previous imprisonment suffered by him in this case shall be set off against the substantive period of imprisonment awarded to him. Fine paid. File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convict free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 24/05/2010. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 +1) Delhi
CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85
PS Sadar Bazar 24
State through Ranbir Singh (DI) Vs. Virender Kumar.
CC No. 77/4/86.
FIR No. 283/85
U/s. 18(a)(ii)/27A(i) &
18(c)/27 (b) (ii), 18 (a)
(i)/section 27 (c) & section
27 (d) & U/s. 18A r/w
section 28 of Drugs &
Cosmetics Act, 1940
PS Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
24/05/2011
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Ranbir Singh, Drug Inspector.
Accused/convict Virender Kumar is present on bail with Counsel. Heard. Vide separate order, order on sentence announced in the open court and the accused has been sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18 (a) (ii)/27A(i) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18 (c) /27 (b) (ii) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18 (a) (i) /27 (c) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is sentenced for a period of two years rigorous CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 25 imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18 (a) (i) /27 (d) of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ i.d. to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The accused is further sentenced for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 18A/28 of D & C Act, 1940 and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ i.d. to undergo two months simple imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict and any previous imprisonment suffered by him in this case shall be set off against the substantive period of imprisonment awarded to him. Fine paid.
At this stage, the convict Virender Kumar moves an application and submits that he intend to appeal against the sentence passed against him by this court and seeks interim bail till the filing of appeal. The convict was on bail during the trial. In view of submissions made, the convict is admitted to bail U/s. 389 (3) CrPC on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/ and one surety to the like amount. BB furnished and accepted till one month from today or till the filing of appeal, whichever is earlier subject to payment of fine. File be consigned to Record Room.
BB of convict be put up on 24/06/2011 at 2:00 pm. MM:DELHI 24/05/2011 CC No. 77/4/86, FIR No. 283/85 PS Sadar Bazar 26