RAMCHANDER HATKAR Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner preferred the present Criminal Revision Case by invoking the provisions under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment, dated 18-04-2006 passed in Crl.A.No.84 of 2005 by the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under S.C./S.T. (PoA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, wherein and whereby the learned Special Judge confirmed the judgment, dated 13-06-2005 passed in C.C.No.47 of 2003 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Sanga Reddy, wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class convicted the petitioner/accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec. 27(b)(ii) of Drugs Cosmetic Act, 1940 and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec. 27(d) of Drugs Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows : On 06-12-2001, the complainant, who is the Drugs Inspector, Medak District, has inspected the stores of District Co-ordinator of Hospital Services, District Headquarters Hospital, Sangareddy and found the black phenyl in two drums (200 litres) which do not contain labels and was supplied by M/s.Padmavathi Medicals, Cuddapa. Then he has drawn two samples as per the procedure and sent it to Government Analyst, Hyderabad for analysis and on 22-4-2002, the complainant received the test report stating that the Black Phenyl is not of standard quality as the sample does not meet specification under schedule o of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 for Black Phenyl. Then the complainant forwarded a copy of the said report to the District Coordination, Hospital Services, Sangareddy, along with sealed sample containing one litre of black phenyl which was drawn from their stores under acknowledgment and requested to disclose the source of supply of the subject batch Number of Black Phenyl. They disclosed that they purchased the subject Batch No. Phenyl from M/s.Dayanand Medical Agencies, Inderbagh, Hydeabad and then the complainant addressed a letter to the said M/s.Dayanand Medical Agencies, Inderbagh, Hyderabad requesting to disclose the source of supply of the subject batch No. Phenyl and in turn they addressed a letter that they have purchased the same from M/s.Saibaba Chemical Industries, Hyderabad vide Bill No.140, dated 9-11-2001. Then the complainant addressed a letter to M/s.Saibaba Chemical Industries, Hyderabad requesting to confirm whether it manufactured and sold the subject batch No. Phenyl to M/s.Dayanand Agencies.

(3.) The accused, being the proprietor of M/s.Saibaba Chemical Industries, Hyderabad has given a reply to the complainant sating that he manufactured 400 litres of Black Phenyl Batch No.0146, manufacturing date, Oct., 2001 and expiry date, March, 2003 and entire stock of the said Batch phenyl was sold to M/s.Dayanand Medical Agencies, Inderbagh, Hyderabad vide invoice No.140, dated 9-11-2001 and that their product was declared not of standard quality due to unwashed second hand drums. On perusal of the concerned copies of record, it is revealed that the accused sold 400 litres of black phenyl of batch No.0146 but as per records (Manufacturing record and certificate of analysis) the said product batch No. size is 200 litres only and that he has not followed conditions of licence i.e., Rule 74 (c) and Rule 74(o) read with schedule M Part I S.No.9 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules and thereby contravened Sec. 18 (c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.