SANJAY KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by filing this revision has assailed the judgment dated 23.11.2001 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada in Criminal Appeal No. 140/72 of 2001/94. By the said judgment, the appellate court in dismissing the appeal,has confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.1994 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Udala in 2(c) CC. No. 06 of 1990 (T.C. No. 98 of 1990), convicting the petitioners (accused persons) for commission of offence under section 27(d) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The order of sentence directing each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for offence under section 27(d) of the Act and petitioner (accused Sanjay Sahu) to undergo simple imprisonment for six months has also been confirmed.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that the accused Sanjay was having the retail and wholesale drug licence and running the medicine shop in the name and style of M/s. Dukura Medical Hall at Dukura. One Akshaya Kumar Sahu was the approved Pharmacist to supervise the sale of drugs in the said shop. On 29.06.1989, around 9.15 A.M., the then Drug Inspector, Mayaurbhanj (P.W.1) inspected the said shop when the accused Madhusudan and Dibyalochan were present and it is said that they were engaged for selling of medicines to the customers. It is stated that the P.W.1 then without producing any prescription purchased some medicines such Valium-5, Stemitil, Becozyme C Forte etc. and he was granted with a cash memo. It is further stated that although those medicines are required to be sold under the supervision of the Pharmacist on production of the prescription of registered medical practitioner, the accused persons namely, Madhusudan and Dibyalochan without demanding any such prescription in violation of Rule 65(2) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules sold those medicines to P.W.1. It is also stated that the Tetanus Toxiod injection amples, required to have be kept in refrigerator to preserve potency, had not been so stored in the said shop which had no such facility. The licensing authority having excluded from the licence issued for sale of Tetanus Toxiod in favour of the accused Sanjay who was running the shop in contravention of the condition of the licence and provisions of section 18 (c) of the Act, that was so found in violation of the licence condition. P.W.1 then disclosed his identity to those two accused persons namely, Madhusudan and Dibyalochan and observing all formalities of search, seized Tetanus Toxiod ampoules stored in the racks of the shop and other medicines. P.W.1 next on 4.7.89 issued a letter to accused Sanjay asking him to furnish the information regarding source of supply of said drugs. Accused Sanjay sent a letter on 10.07.1989 admitting that he has no valid licence to stock for sale of such biological and special products. He also admitted that the pharmacist was absent in the shop during that time of inspection. It is further stated that the accused persons failed to furnish particulars regarding sale of those medicines. So the prosecution report was filed and the accused persons faced trial for commission of offence under section 27(d) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(3.) From the side of the prosecution during trial, the Drug Inspector has been examined as P.W.1. and he is the lone witness for the prosecution. Documents such as cash memo (Ext.1), seizure list (Ext.2), office copy of the letter dated 4.7.89 (Ext. 3) and the reply of the accused Sanjay Ku. Sahu (Ext.4) etc. have also been proved.