ALLADI KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by A-2 in C.C.No.190 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet Medak District.

(2.) A-1 and himself were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 27 (b) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short the Act'). After recording the evidence, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the alleged offences against both the accused are proved. Accordingly, they were convicted for the offence u/s.27 (b) of the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and they were also convicted for the offence u/s.28 of the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer S.I. for two months under each count. The accused, being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court dated 28-03-1998, preferred Criminal Appeal No.43 of 1998 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Sangareddy. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the appeal, acquitted A-l and confirmed the conviction of A-2 and the sentence imposed thereon by the trial Court for the alleged offences. A-2, being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate Court, preferred the present revision challenging its validity and legality.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A-2 submitted that a drug licence, which was not in force, was seized from the house of A-2 and the licence was in the name of A-l, who is no other than his brother. The house does not belong to him and the drugs also belong to his brother. He is not indulging in any sale of any of the drugs kept in his house. His brother, A-1 is also residing in the same house. There was no board exhibited to indicate that the drugs were sold at that house. Therefore, the appellate Court erred in holding that A-2 along with A-1 was responsible for the commission of offence and the appellate Court while acquitting A-1, erroneously confirmed the conviction of A-2. Therefore, the conviction of A-2 is liable to be set aside.