STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NATVARBHAI RANCHHODBHAI SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Criminal Case No. 3549 of 1990 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Palanpur dated 10.12.2004 recording acquittal of the Respondent Accused for the offence under Section 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c) and Sections 27 and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal.

(2.) THE Complainant - Drug Inspector raided the residential premises of the Respondent Accused at Palanpur on the basis of the information about the sale of drugs/medicines without any permission or authority and seized such articles. It is the case of the prosecution that it was found to be spurious and substandard which was sold and stocked without any permission for which the complaint was registered which culminated into the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 3549 of 1990.

(3.) HEARD learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Appellant State of Gujarat. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that the trial court has committed an error in appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence. He emphasized that the court below ought to have believed the evidence of the complainant which is fully corroborated by the other witnesses. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that the reasons recorded for non -compliance of mandatory provision is misconceived. He submitted that the learned trial judge has erred in holding that no notice was given after the report of the analyst was received affecting the right of the accused. Learned APP Shri Jani also referred to the testimony of the Complainant at Exh. 19 and also other papers. He also referred to the Exh. 30 and submitted that the possession of such spurious medicine is established. He submitted that as stated admittedly the accused was not having any permission or license to keep or stock such medicine or the drugs. Therefore it would have been necessary for him to explain the possession of such drug or medicine. Learned APP Shri Jani strenuously stated that it presupposes that it was for the purpose of sale without any authority or permission and it was sold to doctors. He submitted that the seizure memo has been served upon the Respondent Accused at Exh. 31 and therefore the findings and the reasons recorded by the court below are erroneous. Learned APP Shri Jani submitted that the statement of the Respondent Accused which has been recorded by the complainant are also produced. Similarly the samples which were taken for which the notices are produced at Exh. 32 to 36 and it has been found on the analysis that it was spurious drug. He submitted that the court below has failed to consider this relevant material and evidence.