RAMESH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner Ramesh Chander and Raj Kumar were prosecuted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for having committed offence under section 27(a)(i) (on two counts) of the Drugs (and Cosmetics) Act, 1940. Both were convicted on both the counts and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count by the learned trial Court. It was also ordered that in default of payment of fine the defaulter would undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under each count.

(2.) RAMESH Chander and Raj Kumar filed separate appeals which were disposed of by one judgment by learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. He did not find any merit in the appeals and dismissed the same but reduced the sentence of each one of the convicted persons under each count to one year on the ground that the offence was committed in 1976. Feeling aggrieved Ramesh Chander has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 4th August, 1976 PW 1 Harbhajan Singh, Drugs Inspector, accompanied by PW 8. Salwan inspected the premises of Ramesh Medical Store situated at Amritsar. Ramesh Chander petitioner was at the shop. Two samples of medicines, one of Chloramphenicol and the other of Tetracycline capsules were seized according to the rules. The relevant memos prepared by the said Drugs Inspector were attested by A.R. Salwan and signed by Ramesh Chander petitioner. The seized samples were sent to the Public Analyst who vide reports Exhibit PH and PJ found the same to be adulterated and of sub-standard quality because in chloramphenicol capsules there was no drug of that name thought it was claimed that each capsule contained 250 mg. of it Similarly in tetracycline capsules no Tetracycline was found though it was claimed that each capsule contained 250 mg of Tetracycline Hcl. After reports of the Public analyst, the Durgs Inspector filed complainant against Ramesh Chander and Raj Kumar. As already noticed earlier they have been convicted under section 27(a)(i), on two counts, of the Drugs (and Cosmetics) Act, 1940.