LAWS(CAL)-1956-2-14

S DUTTA Vs. STATE

Decided On February 29, 1956
S.DUTTA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, S. Dutta and Bhupati Naha, were tried by a learned Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta. They were both convicted under Section 420, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Drugs Act, 1940. Appellant S. Dutta was also convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Bhupali Naha was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 months in respect of his conviction under Section 27 of the Drugs Act. The two sentences imposed upon him were, however, ordered to run concurrently. The other appellant Section Dutta was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months in respect of each of the three convictions, but the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Appellant Naha was, at all material times, the proprietor of Messrs. Chandemerdaya & Co., while appellant Dutta, who is a nephew of Naha, was the proprietor of Messrs. Bhabani Medical Stores. Dutta was also a salesman of Chandemardaya & Co. The said charges were the outcome of the appellants' dealings in a drug described upon the bottle containing the drug as

(3.) The charge of conspiracy against both the appellants was to the effect that they were parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat divers persons by selling to them misbranded drug, to wit, bottles of alleged olive oil representing them to contain olive oil of medicinal quality, which they would not have bought had they known the same to be misbranded drug. The charge of cheating against appellant S. Dutt was to the effect that on or about the 7th day of January, 1953, he cheated D.R. Mehta, P.W. 4. by selling six bottles of the said misbranded drug, falsely representing them to contain genuine olive oil of medicinal quality. The third charge against each appellant was for contravention of Section 18(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) and Section 13(c) read with Section 17, (a), (c) and (e) of the Drugs Act, 1940 and with Rule 62 (2 and 3) of the Bengal Drugs Rules, 1946.