PERUMALLA SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is common in both the revisions, was tried for the offence under section 18 of the Drugs and Cosmetics act, 1940 (for short 'the Act') in three separate cases, namely C. C. Nos. 35 and 34 of 1993 and 111 of 1996 on the file of the Additional munsif Magistrate, Sattenapalli. The trial Court convicted him for various offences under the provisions of the Act and imposed different punishments, separately in the three cases. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed crl. A. Nos. 79 and 80 of 1998 on the file of additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, against thejudgments in C. C. Nos. 35 and 34 of 1993 respectively and Crl. A. No. 625 of 2001 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, against thejudgment in C. C. No. 111 of 1996. The criminal appea Is weredismissed. Hence, the petitioner filed these two criminal revision cases, and Crl. R. C. No. 528 of 2002.

(2.) CRL. R. C. NO. 528 of 2002 was heard by a learned Single Judge. Through thejudgment, dated 31-03-2006, the learned Single Judge held that the prosecution did not even accuse the petitioner of manufacturing the drug in question and in that view of the matter, the ,. initiation of prosecution against him is untenable. Accordingly, he allowed the revision and set aside the conviction and sentence against the petitioner.

(3.) THESE two revisions were listed for hearing before another learned Single Jude. ON 20-06-2'007 the following order was passed: "both these revisions raise some important questions of law. Similar matter, in the case of the petitioner, has already been allowed by another Bench of this Court, which in my view needs reconsideration. Therefore, let both these revisions be placed before a Division bench, after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. "