Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Baldev Krishan Chawla And Another on 17 March, 2011
Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Criminal Appeal No. 39-SBA of 2003 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Criminal Appeal No. 39-SBA of 2003
Date of Decision: 17.3.2011
State of Haryana
...Appellant
Versus
Baldev Krishan Chawla and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Senior Deputy Advocate
General, Haryana, for the appellant.
Ms. Amarinder Kaur, Advocate
for the respondents.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)
The State of Haryana has filed the present appeal on being aggrieved against the acquittal of respondent Baldev Krishan Chawla and M/s Sirsa Medical Agencies, Flat No. 17, Ist Floor, Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, in a Criminal Complaint under Section 18(a) (vi) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 65(17) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), filed by Virender Kumar Kamboj, the then District Drugs Inspector, Sirsa, dated 29.8.2000. The complainant stated that he was appointed as an Inspector under Section 21 of the Act by the Government of Haryana and was having a jurisdiction for whole of the State of Haryana. Thus, he was competent to launch criminal complaint. Criminal Appeal No. 39-SBA of 2003 2 Adarsh Goyal was also notified as an Inspector under Section 21 of the Act. Baldev Krishan Chawla and Hari Krishan Chawla were the partners of M/s Sirsa Medical Agencies, Flat No. 17, First Floor, Janta Bhawan, Sirsa. On 6.5.1999, the complainant along with Adarsh Goyal, the then District Drugs Inspector, Sirsa and L.C. Mittal, Senior Drugs Inspector Hisar Zone, Hisar, had searched the business premises of the accused and during search they had detected seven kinds of drugs in the trade stock, which were marked as "Physician's Samples not to be sold". The inventory of these seven kinds of drugs was prepared. The same were put in five cardboard boxes. It is stated that by keeping of those drugs, which were marked as "Physician's Samples not to be sold", the accused had committed an offence punishable under Sections 27(d) of the Act.
On 3.5.2001, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, had charged the accused that they had kept in their possession seven brands of drugs, which were marked as "Physician's Samples not to be sold" for public sale and thereby they had contravened the provisions of Section18(a)(vi) of the Act read with Rule 65(17) of the Rules, and hence the same are punishable under Section 27(d) of the Act.
It is not disputed that these drugs were found from the business premises of the accused and to this effect, PW.1 Adarsh Goyal, Inspector, Fatehabad, has so deposed and to the similar effect is the testimony of PW.2 L.C. Mittal, Senior Drugs Inspector, Hisar. The accused, in defence, have examined Ravi Kohli as DW.1, D.K. Sharma as DW.2 and Naresh Kumar as DW.3. The defence witnesses were the Medical Representatives of the Drug Companies to whom the said drugs Criminal Appeal No. 39-SBA of 2003 3 belonged. The gist of defence evidence has been given in para No.8 of the impugned judgment dated 15.1.2002, passed by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa and the same reads as under:-
"8. On the other hand, Ravi Kohli (DW1) testified that he is a Medical Representative of Johnson & Johnson company for the last 12 years. He is acquainted with the accused. He had sent some medicines to the accused by transport. The G.R. Regarding the same is Ex.PC and his letter is Ex. DD. He had sent the medicines on 29.4.1999. These are the same drugs which were seized by the DDI. These drugs were "Physician's sample and were not for sale. After the seizure by the DDI, he had written the letter to his company that the drugs had been seized. To the same effect is the testimony of D.K. Sharma (DW2) who has deposed that he is working as Medical Representative of Park Davis Company. He had sent some medicines to the accused through transport. The G.R. of the same is Ex.DB and his letter is Ex.DA. These are the same drugs which were seized by the DDI. Similarly, Naresh Kumar (DW3) has deposed that he is a Representative of B.E. Limited. He had kept some medicines at the shop of the accused. He used to take those medicines and distributed them to the Doctors as they were Physician's samples. Criminal Appeal No. 39-SBA of 2003 4 Accused had no concern with the same and had only permitted him to keep the samples at his shop. This is the whole of the evidence led by the parties..."
The trial Court, after relying upon the defence evidence, has come to a conclusion that the accused were carrying Agency of sale of medicines of various companies and they were simply acting as a Care Taker of those companies and the drugs in question belonged to the Medical Representatives. The following finding has been returned by the trial Court:-
"13.....However, the fact remains that the accused has examined three witnesses and has proved on the record the G.Rs to establish it on the record that the drugs in fact, did not belong to him and that he was simply a care-taker of them till they were lifted by the Medical Representatives concerned to whom the drugs, in fact, belonged. The fact that the accused did not disclose the source of the drugs to the DDI at the time of inspector and the fact that he did not reply to the notice issued by the DDI to him, may be circumstances against the accused, but I am of the considered view that they did not establish the culpability of the accused beyond doubt..."
It was within the realm of appreciation of the trial Court to rely upon the defence witnesses. This Court, in appeal against acquittal, will not re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence. The findings arrived at Criminal Appeal No. 39-SBA of 2003 5 by the trial Court cannot be held to be perverse on the facts and on appreciation of the evidence. The finding, so returned by the trial Court, is possible. After the trial Court has formulated one view, which suffers from no infirmity, this Court will not cause interference to disturb acquittal of the accused.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 17, 2011 "DK"