PURAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant Revision petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment dtd. 28/8/2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 56 of 2011, whereby judgment dtd. 29/8/2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur in case No. 40-1 of 2008 convicting and sentencing petitioner for offences under Sec. 27(b)(ii) and Sec. 28 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 has been affirmed.

(2.) The Drug Inspector, Hamirpur, H.P. filed Complaint No. 40-1/2008 against petitioner alleging inter-alia that petitioner was found selling, stocking and exhibiting for sale allopathic drugs without valid license. As per Drug Inspector, he inspected the premises of petitioner on 4/4/2006 and found petitioner running a Clinic-cum- Medical Store under the name and style of M/s Thakur Clinic at Village and Post Office Balduhak, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. Large number of allopathic medicines were found in the business premises of petitioner being exhibited for sale. Petitioner could not produce valid license for such exhibition or sale of allopathic drugs. The Drug Inspector, seized all allopathic drugs found in the premises of the petitioner. Prepared its inventory in Form No.16 and sealed them in two separate cardboard cartons. Independent witnesses were associated, in whose presence seizure and sealing procedure was concluded. Later, petitioner was afforded an opportunity by Drug Inspector to submit the license, if any, to exhibit for sale allopathic drug, but the petitioner failed to do so, hence the complaint for commission of offences under Sec. 18(c) and 18-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(3.) The Drug Inspector examined himself and three other witnesses to prove the allegation against the petitioner. CW-2 Chaman Lal, CW-3 Sukh Dev and CW-4 Rakesh Kumar, were examined as independent witnesses, but none of them supported the prosecution case. Petitioner was examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. Petitioner also examined one Subhash Chand as defence witness.