STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. VINAY KUMAR MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE of Punjab has filed this appeal against acquittal to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar dated March 5, 1990 whereby Vinay Kumar Mahajan, respondent herein, was acquitted for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) THE Drugs Inspector had on May 28, 1985 received secret information and inspected the shop of shop of M/s Om Parkash Vinay Kumar Mahajan at Chock Imam Basir, Jalandhar. At the time of the inspection Vinay Kumar Mahajan, respondent herein, was present at the shop. The Inspector was accompanied by another Drugs Inspector, two Senior Medical Officers and a police party headed by Inspector Narinder Pal Singh. During the inspection one Nathu was also associated as a public witness. On the search of the shop it was found that the respondent had stocked a number of drugs, in respect of which he could not produce any licence or registration certificate. The respondent could not disclose the source from where the drugs had been acquired. The recovered drugs included 4x50 tablets of avil-50, allegedly manufactured by M/s Hoechest Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Bombay, 4x50 tablets of saridon, allegedly manufactured by M/s Roche Products Ltd. Bombay, 4x20 tablets of baralgan, allegedly manufactured by M/s. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Bombay and 4x50 tablets of analgin, allegedly manufactured by Alpine Industries, New Delhi. The remaining drugs at the shop were also seized. The fair price of the samples was also paid and the accused issued separate cash memos for the four drugs purchased. Recovery memo was prepared in Form 16 and attested by the witnesses. A show cause notice was sent to the firm on June 10, 1985. Reports of the Analyst were also obtained and it was revealed that avil-50 was not of standard quality as it did not have the active ingredients. Saridon sample was also tested and found to be not of standard quality because the active ingredients were missing. Similar were the reports in respect of baralgon and analgin. The analysis had been conducted by the Government Analyst and his report is dated July 3, 1985.

(3.) AFTER the respondent put in appearance, he was charged under the various sections of the Act in respect of selling drugs without a licence, keeping drugs which were spurious and not disclosing the source from where the drugs had been acquired. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to the tried. The State examined seven witnesses. In this statement without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-respondent denied all the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded false implication. The version pleaded by the accused was that he was running a general merchandise shop, the drugs were neither stocked nor sold on his premises, the police had recovered the drugs from a godown and he had no connection with the drugs recovered or the said godown.