PUSHPINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PUSPINDER Kumar, who was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, under section 18 (a) (vi) read with rules 65 (18) 65 (17) and 65 (4) (4) and 65 (5) (3) punishable under section 27(b) of the Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/ - In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal having been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, he has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts are that on 6th October, 1976, Drugs Inspector Gopal Singh (P.W. 1), accompanied by Dr. Bawa Ram Gupta (P.W. 2) and Harbans Singh, Superintendent, Dispensary, Rajindra Hospital (P.W. 3) went to the shop of Pushpinder Kumar, wherein he carries on business as a chemist under the name and style of the Punjabi Medical Stores, near the said hospital in Patiala. Upon checking 13 injections shown in Memo Exhibit P.A. of the expired date 31 injections belonging to the hospital and other medicines or which the appellant could not show the purchase record were taken into possession. According to the prosecution, he was thus liable for the commission of the above offences. At the trial, Pushpinder Kumar pleaded was not present at the time of the raid. He was called later and his signatures were obtained on the form XV1. Earlier also, two or three times his shop had been raided by the Drugs Inspector, but nothing incriminating was ever found. As some persons made false complaint about the integrity or the Drugs Inspector therefore, he in turn, to save his own skin implicated him (Pushpinder Kumar) in this case. Two witnesses were examined in defence.

(3.) COMING now to the conviction of the petitioner under tuft 65 (4) (4) of the above -said rules, the requirement is preparation of the record of purchase of drugs intended for sale by the licensee. In the first place, since the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the medicines in question were intended for sale, therefore, the rule under consideration cannot be invoked. In the second place, there is nothing in the testimony of the Drugs Inspector that at the time of the raid, he asked for the records from the petitioner. Rather, his evidence is that on the following day, he sent notice Exhibit P.C. calling upon him to produce the record. In Exhibit P.C., the purchase record with regard to medicines at S. Nos. 2, 3 and 5 was sent for and no other. With respect to these medicines, Dr. Bawa Ram Gupta (P.W. 2) deposed in cross -examination that the accused showed the purchase record. The other witness Harbans Singh (P.W. 3) also admitted that the petitioner showed purchase record to the Drugs Inspector. For the foregoing reasons, conviction under rule 65(4) (4) of the above -said rules has no reasonable basis.