MOHAN NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal Revision Case filed by the accused Mohan Nair in C.C.N. 734 of 1978 on the file of the Court of the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, against the judgment dated 14.11.1983 in C.A. No. 4 of 1983 on the file of the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu Division, confirming the conviction and sentence of the revision -petitioner herein by the trial court and dismissing the appeal. The trial Court found the revision -petitioner herein guilty under S. 27(a) (ii) and 27A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (Act 23 of 1940) hereinafter referred to as 'Act', convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - , in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under S. 27(a)(ii) of the Act, and also sentenced the revision -petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 30/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under S. 27A of the Act. The trial Court found that the prosecution has established its case that the revision -petitioner had contravened the pro -Vision of S. 18 and 18A of the Act. The lower Appellate Court also confirmed the above convictions as well as the sentence imposed by the trial court on the revision -petitioner.

(2.) THE complainant, Shafee Ahamath, Drugs Inspector, Conjeevaram Range, Conjeevaram/the respondent herein filed the complaint before the trial court under S. 18 and 27 of the Act, inter alia, stating therein as follows:

(3.) THE prosecution had examined Shafee Ahamath, Drugs Inspector as P. W. 1 He has stated in his evidence that he is the Drugs Inspector, Kancheepuram, and that Kundrathur is within his jurisdiction. On 11.6.1978, he has inspected the hospital of the revision -petitioner situate in No. 5, Thulukkar Street, and at that time, it was about 11 a.m. During that time, he found allopathic medicines kept in the hospital of the revision -petitioner. The revision -petitioner had no licence for keeping those medicines. The revision -petitioner is a homeopath medical practitioner. In the presence of two witnesses, P.W. 1 had seized 43 items of allopathic medicines from the hospital of the revision -petitioner under Ex. P1 mahazar. The copy of Ex. P1 mahazar was given to the revision -petitioner, and an acknowledgment has also been obtained with respect to the same. Ex. P2 is the notice given under Form No. 6 to the revision -petitioner for seizing the medicines. Ex. P3 is the statement given by the revision petitioner on that date. Ex. P4 is the permission obtained by P.W. 1 on 13.6.1978 from the trial court for keeping the seized medicines with him. Ex. P5 is the copy of the show -cause notice sent to the revision -petitioner on 20.6 1978. Ex. P6 is the reply given by the revision -petitioner for the said notice. P.W. 1 has further stated, in his evidence that since Ex. P6 reply was not satisfactory, he obtained Ex. P7, sanction and filed the complaint before the trial court under S. 18A and 18 (c) of the Act on 17.10.1978. P.W. 1 has also stated in his chief examination that M.O.1 to M.O. 43 are the material objects that he seized from the hospital of the revision -petitioner under Ex. P1.