IN RE : R DAYALAN AND ORS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 S. 18 read with S. 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 id a Criminal Revision Case before this Court. The facts are as follows: On 2nd February 1975, P.W.2 the Drugs Inspector of Dharmapuri inspected Sri Murugan Pharmacy at Hosur of which shop the first accused 1 Chandriah Naldu was the proprietor and in which shop the second accused was an employee. Noticing that some of those medicines contained 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, five (sic) 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 example and found it to contain chloral (sic) an allopathic medicine which was an (sic) 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 tendril show cause notice on 8th May 1973 to accused 1 and 2 who then sent (sic) 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 22nd August 1975 and the third accused sent a reply enclosing with it a certificate issued by the sixth (sic) appointing the third accused as the sole a (sic) for sale of the drugs for Salem and (sic) puri Districts as well as bills for the sales the third accused by the fourth accessed (sic) P.W. 2 thereupon sent a show cause notice to the forth accused at Madurai and the fifth accused who is the manager of the (sic) sent a reply, Ex. P. 14. P.W.2 subsequently laid the complaint before the Court under Sip of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, however, eventually discharged the first and second (sic). He framed a charge against the petitioner alone under S. 27(a)(i) and 27(b) of the (sic) on the ground that they had manufacture and stocked for sale the misbranded (sic). The learned Magistrate eventually convicted the petitioners of an offence under S. 27(a)(i) of the Act and sentenced them each to R. 1 for one year. On appeal the learned Sections Judge altered their conviction under S. 27(a)(i) of the Act into one under S. 27(b) of the Act, but confirmed the sentence.