KANNAGI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner who is the first accused in the case has been convicted for offences under Secs. 18 (c) read with Rule 65 (2) and sec. 18 (c) read with Rule 65 (3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act in C. C. No. 4447 of 1988 on the file of the Tenth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and sentenced under Sec. 27 (d) of the Act on each count to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the first accused is the owner of the drug store and licensee which P. W. 1 Drug Inspector inspected on 3. 8. 1987. According to P. W. 1 for the period from 10. 4. 1987 to 3. 8. 1987 Schedule ' 'H' 'drugs have been sold without the personal supervision of a qualified person, and Prescription Register has not been maintained regarding the said sales. On these grounds A1 and also her husband A-2 who was selling drugs in the shop when P. W. 1 inspected, were both prosecuted and convicted and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) IT is next contended that as regards the first charge i. e. , Schedule H drugs were sold without the personal supervision of a qualified person as required under Rule 65 (2), there is no evidence to show that it was done so. P. W. 1 has clearly stated in her evidence that when she inspected the store on 3. 8. 1987 there was no pharmacist and there was a resignation letter by a pharmacist dated 10. 4. 1987 and from 10. 4. 1987 to 3. 8. 1987 there were sales as evidenced by some receipts. In the cross examination of P. W. 1 it has not been suggested to her at all either that there were no sales as deposed by her or that there was a pharmacist. Therefore there is absolutely no reason whatsoever as to why the evidence of P. W. 1 should not be believed. Therefore, I find no merit in this contention raised.