R DAYALAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. for sending one bottle of the M. Os. concerned in C. C. No. 17 of 1976 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hosur to the Chemical Examiner, Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Chepauk for analysis and report with regard to the nature of the contents of the bottle.

(2.) THE petitioners stand convicted by the learned Judicial Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hosur of an offence under Section 18 read with Section 27 (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. The aforesaid conviction and sentence was confirmed on appeal. The petitioners have thereupon filed a Criminal Revision Case before this Court. The facts are as follows : On 2-2-1975 P. W. 2 the Drugs Inspector of Dharmapuri inspected Sri Murugan Pharmacy at Hosur of which shop the first accused Chandriah Naidu was the proprietor and in which shop the second accused was an employee. Noticing that some of those medicines containing the label "manojan" in the shop, P. W. 2 purchased 4 such bottles from the second accused for Rs. 14 and obtained the cash receipt Ex. P-3. He sealed those 4 bottles, put on them sample No. 6, gave one bottle to the second accused and obtained his acknowledgment and subsequently sent one of the sample bottles to the Government Analyst, Guindy. The Government Analyst at Guindy examined the sample and found it to contain chloral hydrate, an allopathic medicine which was an hypnotic. P. W. 2 then seized the remaining 10 bottles of Manojan in the presence of P. W. 3, a private witness. Subsequently P. W. 2 issued a show cause notice on 8-5-1975 to accused 1 and 2 who then sent replies Exs. P-8 and P-11 respectively in which they have stated that they purchased the aforesaid drug from the third accused Dayalan. P. W. 2 thereupon sent a show cause notice to the third accused on 22-3-1975 and the third accused sent a reply enclosing with it a certificate issued by the sixth accused appointing the third accused as the sole agent for sale of the drugs for Salem and Dharmapuri Districts as well as bills for the sales to the third accused by the fourth accused firm. P. W. 2 thereupon sent a show cause notice to the fourth accused at Madurai and the fifth accused who is the manager of the firm sent a reply Ex. P-14. P. W. 2 subsequently laid the complaint before the Court under Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

(3.) THE learned Magistrate however eventually discharged the first and second accused. He framed a charge against the petitioners alone under Section 27 (a) (i) and 27 (b) of the Act on the ground that they had manufactured and stocked for sale the misbranded drug. The learned Magistrate eventually convicted the petitioners of an offence under Section 27 (a) (i) of the Act and sentenced them each to R. I. for one year. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge altered their conviction under Section 27 (a) (i) of the Act into one under Section 27 (b) of the Act but confirmed the sentence.