Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Hemraj vs State Of Haryana Through District Drugs ... on 17 May, 2012
Crl. Rev. No.1471 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Rev. No.1471 of 2012
Date of Decision: 17.05.2012
Dr. Hemraj
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana through District Drugs Inspector Fatehabad
...Respondent
CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
Present:- Mr. Chand Ram Olla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest ?
**
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL)
This is a revision petition against the Order dated 09.12.2009, vide which, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under :-
U/s 27(b)(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (One thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. U/s 28 Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (five hundred only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 15 days. Crl. Rev. No.1471 of 2012 2 The appeal against the said Order was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Fatehabad vide Order dated 24.04.2012.
While praying for setting aside the said judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a delay of more than nine months in instituting the complaint.
The second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that no independent witness was examined.
Heard.
As per the complaint, the petitioner was found in possession of 18 types of allopathic medicines without a valid license.
The first argument that the complaint was filed after nine months has no merit as the complaint is admittedly within the limitation period prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The second argument that no independent witness was examined also has no merit as the official witness PW-1 Dr. Adarsh Goyal has specifically stated in his statement that he tried to join independent witness at the time of inspection of shop but nobody was agreed to join in the raiding party. In any case, the evidence of the official witness cannot be ignored and was consistent. The evidence of Dr. Adarsh Goyal was supported by another official witness Dr. Rajinder Singh, Medical Officer, PW-2.
In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere in the judgments rendered by the Courts below.
Dismissed accordingly.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR) 17.05.2012 JUDGE gurpreet