BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against judgment dated 28.08.2012 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh dismissing appeal filed by petitioner against judgment of conviction dated 12.12.2009 and order of sentence dated 16.12.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh convicting petitioner-accused for commission of offence under Sections 18A, 18(c) and 18(a)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months besides sentences of fine.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through both the judgments rendered by learned courts below. Brief facts of the case are that, on 02.06.1998, District Drugs Inspector alongwith Assistant State Drugs Controller and Senior Drugs Inspector visited the premises of M/s Balaji Medical Store, Taoru. A sample of allopathic medicines, which were kept by petitioner-accused in the said shop for sale, was taken for testing as per the rules. It was found that there were some expired medicines, physician' samples 'not for sale' and some banned drugs were also stocked.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of petitioner at the time of issuing notice of motion that he did not want to press this revision petition so far as judgment of conviction as passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court is concerned. However, it was contended that petitioner deserves some leniency in the quantum of sentence. Hence, notice of motion was issued qua quantum of sentence only. I have also perused both the judgments passed by learned courts below. The same are based on evidence. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent finding recorded by learned courts below. Hence, there is nothing as to why this Court should interfere in the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial court and as affirmed by learned appellate court.