SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India through the Drugs Inspector, Central Drug Standard Control Organisation, North Zone, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, U.P., filed a complaint against the petitioner Shamsher Singh and another Narinder Nath under Sec. 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rules 65(3), 65(4), 65(6) and 65(9) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules. In this complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner was the proprietor of M/s. Dr. Sahib Singh and Sons, Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi, and Narinder Nath was his Manager. It was further alleged that on 27-11-1970 the premises of M/s. Dr. Sahib Singh & Sons situated at Ashoka Hotel were inspected by the Drugs Inspector and that it was found that the rules has been violated in several respects. It is not necessary for the purpose of this revision petition to refer to the details of the alleged contravention of the rules. It was stated that the petitioner and his Manager were liable to be convicted under section 27(b) of the Act read with the rules mentioned above. Summons were issued to the petitioner and Narinder Nath and after their appearance, the evidence of two prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W. 1, K.S. George, Drugs Inspector, and P.W. 2, S.P. Luthra, another Drugs Inspector, was recorded. On the strength of the evidence of these two witnesses, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner as well as against Narinder Nath under section 27(b) of the Act. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Session and contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did rot justify the framing of a charge against him under section 27(b) of the Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted this contention and has made a reference to this Court with a recommendation that the charge framed against the petitioner be quashed.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has recommended the quashing of the charge on two grounds, namely,

(3.) P.W. 1, K.S. George, was first examined on 8-9-1972. He then stated as follows:-