K. SIDHARTHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam tried the revision petitioner for an offence under Section 33EEC read with Section 33 -I of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, "the Act") and awarded imprisonment and fine. Aggrieved by that, the revision petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam. In the appeal, the conviction was confirmed. 1st accused in the case is now before this Court challenging the appellate judgment.

(2.) HEARD Shri Suresh Kumar Kodoth, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Smt. Madhu Ben, learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) IT is to be borne -in -mind that in revisional jurisdiction what is to be decided is the legality, correctness and propriety of the sentence or order. I have gone through the oral evidence of material witnesses and the documents produced by the prosecution. Regarding the authority of P.Ws. 1 and 4 to detect an offence, there is no dispute. What is disputed is the correctness of Ext. P11 bill, whereby it is alleged by the prosecution that bulk quantity of kaivalyachoornam was sold by the revision petitioner to the 2nd accused for the purpose of selling the same through the medical shop run by her. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that Ext. P11 does not show the signature of the revision petitioner. That apart, Exts. D1 to D4 bill books maintained by the Nedumpurath Pharmacy, produced before the first appellate court, would show that bill No. 103 is relating to kaivalyathailam, which is admittedly a licensed drug manufactured by the revision petitioner. These documents were not produced at the time of trial. By invoking power under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "Cr.P.C."), these documents were produced before the first appellate court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge considered these documents and repelled the contention of the revision petitioner that Ext. P11 was a concocted document. The reasons stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the revision petitioner, being a qualified ayurveda physician, is presumed to know the implication of manufacturing drugs without obtaining a license and it would be idle to think that he should have signed on the bill evidencing sale of unlicensed drugs are proper and probable. The defence has no case that the bill books are serially numbered and only one bill book contained the bill No. 103. In otherwords, there is no defence case even before the lower appellate court that Ext. P11 bill bearing No. 103 is part only of one bill book. It can be seen from a perusal of Exts. D1 to D4 that many bill books contain bill No. 103. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner that Ext. P11 is a concocted cannot be believed.