STATE OF KAENATAKA Vs. MANOJ DRUG HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this appaal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment of acquittal d|,28-1-1973, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class (I Court), Bangalore City in CC.2555 of 1971 acquitting the respondents who were Accused 1, Accused 3 and Accused 4 respectively in the said criminal case of the offences under S.27(b) read with S.18(a) (i) and S.18(a) (vi) and S.22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) The prosecution case was that PW.2 Venkanna Gowda Rayanna Gowda Patil was working as Asst Drug Controller in Bangalore and had been appointed as Inspector under Sec.21 of the Act. The Manoj Drug House sells drugs in its shop. Apart from the drugs displayed in the shop, it was stocking drugs in its store room. On 17-7-1970, PW.2 went to the premises of Accused 1 and found Liquid Paraffin I.P., Batch No.1, repacked by M|s Rajasthan Pharmaceutical and Farmalin I.P., Batch No.1 stocked and exhibited for sale. He served notice on Accused 3 who was present and took samples as provided in 3.23 of the Act. He, of course gave one sample of each to Accused 3. He sent samples of the drugs to the Govt Analyst for testing. The Govt Analyst sent a report and a copy of it was supplied to the accused. Thereafter, FW.1 Jayaram, Drugs Inspector appointed under S.21 of the Act for the local area of Bangalore Divn, took up the matter on hand. PW.2 issued prohibitory order under S.22 (c) of the Act and, PW.1 visited the promises of Accused 1 on 9-9-1970 and served the prohibitory order. Again on 29-9-1970, he served another prohibitory order by which, the period was extended. Again on 19-10-1970, he served and ther prohibitory order issued by PW.2 to be in force even beyond 28-10-1970. On 28-10-1970, he went with twq witnesses to the, premises of Accused 1. He directed that the stocks in regard to which prohibitory orders were issued, be produced before him. The) stock was produced and it was iound that the stock was short by 57 bottles in regard to liquid paraffin IP.450 ML Batch 1. He recorded a mahazar as per Ext.P8 in this behalf It was thereafter that he was transferred and one Hanumantha Raq was posted as Drug Inspector to this local area. Shri Hanumantha Rao filed the complant in this case.

(3.) The accused have denied having committed the offences. Written statements have been produced by the accused apart from the examlnation of the accused under S.342 CrPC(old) made, by the learned. Magistrate. Their say is that these samples had been taken by PW.2 on the respective dates and that a portion of the samples had been given to them. But, they had purchased the said stock from M/s Rajasthan Pharmaceutical, who were the repackers and they did not know whether the drugs were or were not substandard.