GHANSHYAM LAL SHAV Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant Criminal Revision, the applicant has challenged the judgment dated 27.11.1999 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 82/1998, by Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate Court"), arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.4.1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 621/1990, by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"). Brief facts leading to the instant case as per the prosecution are that the applicant, who is a resident of village Nariyara under Police Station-Pamgarh in District Bilaspur, was having a shop adjoining his house and from the said shop the applicant was selling medicines and injections. For the selling of these medicines and injections, the applicant did not have any sort of license or an order from the Government nor was the applicant able to show the details in respect of the purchase of these medicines nor was in his possession any receipts in respect of the purchase of these medicines.

(2.) It is this judgment dated 27.11.1999 passed by the appellate Court, which has been put to challenge by way of instant criminal revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits before the Court that the trial Court should have taken into consideration the fact that in the rural back drop of the Indian society in villages and in remote areas, the medicines which are used for the general public for non serious and petty ailments like cough, cold and fever in the villages; there are shopkeepers who sell these medicines and, if not, for these shops, the poor villagers will have to travel quite a far distance for getting these medicines. The second contention put forth by the counsel for the applicant is that the daughter of the present applicant has done a course in pharmacy and has also enrolled herself with the State Pharmacy Council and for which, necessary certificates have been issued by the Pharmacy Council. As such, she is qualified and competent to sell medicines and also knows about the medicines to some extent. Lastly, counsel for the applicant submits that the date of incident (i.e. the date on which the inspection was conducted) was 18.03.1989 and, as such, it is almost 25 years now that the applicant was charged for the offences under the provisions of the Act of 1940 and that at the time of the incident itself, the applicant was around 55 years of age and, after these 25 years of litigation, the applicant has reached around 80 years of age. Therefore, taking a lenient view, the sentence part imposed upon the applicant may be reduced for the period already undergone as the applicant has already been in jail for a period of about 20 days.