RAJENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below on the petitioner for an offence under Section 27(a)(ii) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the accused was found selling allopathic drugs without having any licence. The Drugs Inspector who visited the shop of the petitioner, found the accused-petitioner selling the drugs on 18.1.1983. Then he seized the allopathic drugs after following the procedure and filed the charge sheet against the accused for an offence under Section 27(a)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. In order to prove the gilt of the accused, the prosecution examined three witnesses. After closure of the evidence, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he stated that he was a registered Medical Practitioner and that he was not selling the drugs. On the basis of the evidence on the record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani convicted the accused for an offence under Section 27(a)(ii) read with Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the accused-petitioner preferred an appeal to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1985. On the arguments put before him, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and accordingly dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 24.2.1987.

(3.) THE petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It is stated before me that the accused has already paid the amount of fine and the accused had undergone imprisonment for a period of about one month including the pretrial detention. The offence had taken place in January, 1983 i.e. more than 12 years ago. In view of the lapse of time, I do not think that this is a fit case to send the accused-petitioner to imprisonment now. I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.