STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SHAILESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.9.1992 passed by Sri Uma Shankar Prasad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah in Cr. Appeal No. 3/7 of 1990/1992 by which he has set aside the judgment dated 26.3.1990 passed by Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah in G.R. No. 180 of 1980 (T.R. No. 460 of 1990) convicting Shailesh Kumar (respondent in this appeal) under section 27 (b) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 5000.00 and, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the Drug Inspector, Kaua Kaul, made an inspection of the medicine shop of respondent Shailesh Kumar situated in Kaua Kaul. During inspection, he collected sample of liviferol Batch No. 7664 and sent one part of it to Central Medicine Laboratory, Calcutta for chemical examination on 1.11.1977 and kept one part of the sample in his office for further action. The report was received from Central Medicine Laboratory, Calcutta on 29.12.1977 and the drug was found of substandard. Thereafter, the Drug Inspector asked the respondent to disclose the name and address of the supplier of that medicine but he could not tell the name and address of the supplier and he also failed to produce any bill for purchase of said drug. The said Inspector took sanction for prosecution of respondent from the authority concerned and after receipt of sanction order, filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawadah for violation of sections 18-A and 18-A (i) of the Act by the respondent. Thereafter cognizance was taken under sections 27 (b) and 28 of the Act. Charges were framed against the accused under the said Act who pleaded innocence and preferred to face the trial.

(3.) After considering the evidence and other materials brought on the record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty under section 27 (b) of the Act and sentenced him thereunder, as stated above, and acquitted him under section 28 of the Act.