KANWALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KANWALJIT Singh petitioner was convicted under Section 27(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for commission of an offence under Section 1(a)(c) of the Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar vide order dated April 29, 1987. Appeal filed against the order of conviction was dismissed except, that the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one and, a half years' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below, Kanwaljit Singh Petitioner had filed this revision which was admitted only regarding the question of sentence to the awarded.

(2.) IN brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this case, 'are that on July, 16, 1979,. Harbhajan Singh Drugs Inspector, Amritsar, conducted raid at the premises situated at village Bhakna Kalan. Prem Nath Pambani (since acquitted) was running a medical clinic at that village with the help of Kanwaljit Singh petitioner. Drugs of various types including paracetamol were found at the said clinic and they had been stocked for sale. The petitioner did not possess any licence for keeping those medicines nor he was a registered medical practitioner. After completing legal formalities, Drugs Inspector Harbhajan Singh drew a sample of 88 tablets of paracetamol for the purpose of analysis. Besides, some other drugs were also seized.

(3.) IN the instant case, the learned trial Court merely refused to grant the benefit, of probation to the offender on the ground that offences under the Act which were likely to prove dangerous to the lives of patients who get treatment at the hands of such quacks, should be curbed with a heavy hand. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration either the age or the previous antecedents, or the character, of the offender, nor the trial Court called the report of the District Probation Officer as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.