Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Niranjan Lal Cheepa on 23 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008CRILJ1665
JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
1. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th November. 1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in sessions case No. 8/88 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 18(c) & Section 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act.
2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under:
That on 27-12-1978, Vinod Kumar Dhal Drugs Inspector, Jaipur (P.W. 2) inspected the Clinic of the accused Niranjan Lal Chippa at Dausa.
The accused respondent was found running his clinic unauthorizedly, named under the style of 'Mamta Clinic'. During the course of inspection, P.W. 2 Vinod Kumar Dhal found that the accused respondent having neither valid drug-licence to stock drugs required under the Act nor he was authorized in any manner for stocking the same. The Inspector also found that the accused was examining his patient illegally without authorization of public licence and was also giving medicine from the stock maintained in his clinic. Apart from drug stock, he also found table and stove etc. After inspection, Vinod Kumar Dhal (P.W. 2) prepared inspection report (Ex. P. 5) and also seized the drugs from the clinic and sealed them and also prepared seizure memo on the prescribed form No. 16 (Ex. P. 6). After obtaining the Court order, certain articles were seized.
That the entire matter was referred by him (P.W. 2) to the Drug Controller, Rajasthan, Jaipur who on agreeing to prima facie controversy under Section 18(c) and granted prosecution sanction.
Accordingly, a complaint was submitted by the then Drugs Inspector Sh. Dev Krishan Shringi, before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur on 15-4-1982 who recorded the statement of P.W. 2 Vinod Kumar Dhal. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session on 23-5-1988 as the offence committed by the accused attracted the punishment with imprisonment up to 10 years under Section 27 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge has transferred the aforesaid matter to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur has framed the charges for the offence under Section 18(c) and Section 27 of the Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 5 witnesses and got some documents exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondent under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded.
After conclusion of the trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Jaipur City through his judgment and order dated 7th November, 1988 acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against him holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondent.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7th November, 1988 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the sentence.
3. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has drawn the attention of this Court upon Section 18(c) and Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act 1940. He has also drawn the attention of this Court upon the Rajasthan Gazette Notification published on 30 July 1964. Page 194 (21). Medical and Health Department, Order dated July 7, 1964 which reads as under:
No. F. 1(31)(128) MPH/59/Gr. II--In pursuance of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (ee) of Rule 2 of the Drugs Rule, 1945, the State Government hereby declares all the existing Medical Practitioners who have a practice of not less than five years on 14th May, 1960, to be the "registered medical practitioner" of the modern scientific system of Medicines for the purpose of the Drugs Act, 1940. (Central Act 23 of 1940).
4. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial Court was mislead by the accused respondent showing a certificate of the licence.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent of the charges framed against them. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order in this appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the accused respondent has drawn the attention of this Court upon P.W. 1 Dev Krishan Shringi who has accepted in his cross-examination that Article 1 which he has seen in the Court was not signed by P.W. 1 Vinod Kumar nor it is sealed. He has further drawn the attention of this Court upon P.W. 2 Vinod Kumar Dhal Drugs Inspector. In his cross-examination he has accepted that accused respondent was not selling medicine to any one. He has also accepted that the Ex. D-1 (temporary relief of unqualified private medical practitioner) was not shown to him by the accused respondent during the course of inspection. P.W. 4 Ramesh Sharma was declared hostile. P.W. 5 Pradeep Kumar who is also not supporting the prosecution case. D.W. 1 Moolchand, D.W. 2 Ramchandran and D.W. 3 Niranjan Lai are the defence witnesses and the statements of these witnesses are supporting to the accused respondent.
7. Learned Counsel for the accused respondent further contended that a false case is made against the accused. There is professional rivalry and that is why the case was registered against the accused respondent. The leaned Counsel on behalf of the accused respondent has further contended that the accused respondent is a registered Medical Practitioner. He has submitted (Ex. D. 1) during the course of inspection. But the P.W. 1 Vinod Kumar Dhal was not accepted this document. The aforesaid Ex. D. 1 is reproduced as under:
No 1486/DI/72-73 dated 31-3-1973.
To All Chemists & Druggist.
Jaipur.
Sub-Temporary relief of unqualified private Medical Practitioner.
Whereas the undersigned has verified the bona fides and period of Medical Practice in respect of the following, name and address is given below and that the undersigned is satisfied with the particulars furnished by practitioner. It is enjoined upon all chemist and druggist in your, area to honour prescription of unqualified practitioner as a major to provide them temporary relief of R.M.P. As affidavit execute by them as per notification F. 1 (18)MPH/Gr. II dated 7-7-1964 pending legislation of an act for statutory registration of unqualified private medical practitioner.
This temporary relief Is purely for purpose of Drugs and Cosmetic Rules 1945 under which schedule H & 1 Drugs are required for dispensed on the prescription of RMP and not for any other purpose.
Dr. Niranjan Lal Chhipa S/o Rekha Ram, Jaipur.
Sd/-
Drugs Inspector, Health Officer, Jaipur.
8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid docu ment reveal that the accused respondent has not violated or contravened Section 18(c) and Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act 1940. In view of the aforesaid arguments, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. I have heard learned learned Public Prosecutor, learned Counsel for the accused respondent and gone through the record of the case. 1 have also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 7th November, 1988 passed by the learned trial Court. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be erroneous one.
10. The Court attention was also drawn upon a case which has been decided by the Apex Court of this country in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana wherein their Lordships of Apex Court has held as under:
It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below.
11. It may be stated herein that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Court as to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, high Court should nor ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 7th November, 1988 passed by the, learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. For the reasons indicated herein above, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and order dated 7th November, 1988, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The accused respondent is on bail and need not to surrender. The bail bonds stand discharged.