D NAGA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was tried in C.C. No. 135 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the brugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short "the Act"). The learned Magistrate, ultimately, found him guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Against the judgment, dated 13-4-2001, the petitioner preferred Crl.A.No. 79 of 2001 and the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, while dismissing it, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the Drug Inspector. The accused is the sole proprietor of an unlicenced Medical Shop and running it under the name and style of M/s. Kranthi Medical and General Stores, Atmakur. On 4-9-1998, the complainant, with the assistance of other was Drug Inspectors in the presence of two independent witnesses inspected the Medical shop of the accused, who was in possession of licence in Form 20 and 21 valid upto 31 -12-1995 and did not apply for renewal of the licence was required under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The accused was also found selling certain drugs and the complainant seized the stocks since the proprietor contravened the above provisions of the Act. On 4-9-1998, the complainant informed the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, about the Seizure and prayed for safe custody of the seized property. After receipt of sanction orders (prosecution orders), the complainant filed the complaint.

(3.) Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to Section 18(c) of the Act and contended that there is absolutely no material whatsoever establishing the fact that M.Os. 1 to 36 are either stocked or exhibited or offered for sale and hence, the petitioner could not have been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 18(c) read with 27(b)(ii) of the Act. In this context, he has mainly relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in Mohd. Sabbir v. State of Maharashtra.