SAMAR KUMAR SWAIN Vs. SUBODHA KUMAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment dated 24-11 -2000 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1995, confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the J.M.F.C., Kendrapara in 2(c) C.C. Case No. 15 of 1991/TriaI Case No. 264 of 1995.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused-petitioner was the proprietor of M/s. Sarala Pharmaceuticals, a retail medicine store, situated at Marsaghai. On 15-2-1991 at 1.00 p.m. the complainant-Drug Inspector along with Assistant Controller of Drugs, Bhubaneswar inspected the firm of the accused-petitioner. He found that the drug licence of the said Firm was valid up to 31 -12- 1989 and not renewed thereafter. The registered pharmacist who was managing the firm, had resigned on 3-9-1988 and thereafter the accused-petitioner had not appointed any other pharmacist. He also noticed that the accused-petitioner was not maintaining the registers meant for recording the supply of drugs as well as the records for purchase of drugs intended for sale. The complainant verified the sales, cash/credit memos of some of the agencies and noticed that the accused- petitioner had purchased and sold the scheduled drugs in absence of qualified person (pharmacist). On being asked by the complainant the accused-petitioner also failed to produce the registers and documents as prescribed under Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Hence, the complainant seized 27 items of drugs and documents of the firm and lodged prosecution report against the accused-petitioner for contravention of Sections 18(a)(vi) and 18-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1950 punishable under Section 27(d) and 28-A 6f the said Act respectively. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the prosecution report took cognizance under the above sections.

(3.) The plea of the accused-petitioner is one of complete denial of the allegation.