HARI CHAND VERMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was tried and convicted under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravention of Section 18(c) of the Act. He was further convicted under Section 28 for contravention of Section 18-A of the Act for not disclosing name and other particulars of the person from whom he had acquired the drugs. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 28 of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, vide order dated 15th of July, 1988. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge Ludhiana vide his order dated 4th of September, 1989 upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below Dr. Hari Chand Verma petitioner has filed the present revision which was admitted only qua quantum of sentence to be awarded to the petitioner and for consideration as to whether the benefit of Probation of Offence Act can be granted to the petitioner.

(2.) In brief fact, relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that on 8th of June, 1985 Shri Kuldip Singh Drugs Inspector along with Shri Harbans Singh, Drugs Inspector and Dr. Sarwan Singh, District Tuberclosis Officer went to the shop of petitioner in Guru Angad Colony, Kot Mangal Singh, Ludhiana. The petitioner was found present at his shop and was found stocking for sale 14 different types of allopathic drugs as detailed in seizure memo which were duly seized by Shri Kuldip Singh, Drugs Inspector under Section 12 of the Act, and, receipt in form 16 was given to the petitioner. The petitioner failed to produce any licence for keeping these drugs in his possession, nor, he possessed any registration certificate that he was a Registered Medical Practitioner under the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder. On query by the Drugs Inspector, the petitioner did not disclose the name, address and particulars of the person from he had acquired the drugs stocked for sale. After completing all the formalities criminal complaint under Section 18(c) read with Section 27(b)(ii) and under Section 18-A read with Section 28 of the Act was filed by the Drugs Inspector against the petitioner who was tried, convicted and sentenced as indicates above.

(3.) Counsel for the parties were heard.