PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAWAN Kumar Bansal petitioner herein was booked for the offence punishable under sections 27(b)(ii) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') for stocking and exhibiting seven types of allopathic drugs for sale and distribution in his shop known as Delhi Wala Hospital without possessing a valid licence required under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the allegations, it amounts to contravention of section 18(c) read with rule 2(ee) of the Act.

(2.) AFTER facing the trial, the petitioner stands convicted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar vide, judgment dated 7.2.1992 under section 127(b)(ii) and section 28(b)(ii) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months under section 27(b)(ii) of the Act and RI for 2 months under section 28(b)(ii) of the Act. However, all the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Not satisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence he filed an appeal which met the same fate vide impugned judgment dated 2.3.1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar. Hence, this revision.

(3.) MR . Pabbi at the very outset has submitted that he does not assail the impugned judgment on merits and has prayed for a lenient view so far as the quantum of sentence is concerned. In support of his arguments, Mr. Pabbi has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Surinder Kumar Verma v. The State of Haryana, 1987(2) RCR 201.